ISO 56001: What is the sentiment towards a standard for innovation management?

I have spent the last few days thinking a lot about a paradox.

ISO 56001.

For those of you who do not know, it is the new standard for Innovation Management Systems from the International Organisation for Standardisation, released in 2024 after many years in development.

Its aim is to help create a common set of guidelines which all companies and organisations can follow in order to effectively implement and manage innovation.

When I first heard of the idea, I will admit, I was very skeptical. ISO Standards are known to work for business processes where consistency is key. Things like quality control, safety and security.

However, in my experience, even the best innovation management processes and frameworks need a degree of flexibility designed into them in order to adjust for projects and concepts which are fundamentally different from one another.

When I first spoke about ISO 56001 on my podcast with one of the people who was involved in developing it, you can hear my doubts.

And yet, now that the standard is out there, what is the sentiment people towards it from people who will be tasked with using it?

Different groups of users show different sentiment towards the ISO standard

I used several different AI-driven deep research systems to gather information from around the internet on how different user groups said they felt about the ISO standard, and then programmed the system to analyse whether this sentiment was positive, neutral or negative. I cannot share the raw data, but can share the overall results here.

The results of the research found that the majority of the information online about ISO 56001 was produced by companies and individual consultants who are promoting it and trying to raise awareness of its benefits. This is not surprising, since the ISO Standard is still very new and has not had time to be implemented into that many organisations yet, limiting the number of innovation practitioners who have actively engaged with it or been trained in it.

As a result, the overall sentiment online is strongly positive.

But when you begin to look at the different groups of people who shared their insights about it, a slightly different view emerges.

Sentiment by different user groups

Sentiment towards ISO 56001 by different user groups

As you can see by the results above, the group which is most positive about the new standard are Innovation Consultants or Innovation Solution (Software) Companies. They were overwhelmingly positive, which makes sense as in most cases it is in their best interest to build up interest in the standard, especially in regards to how they can sell implementation work to companies.

Innovation Thought Leaders were also primarily positive, but some also raised some reservations and concerns about how the systems would be implemented, and that they would not remove many of the existing human challenges to why innovation often fails.

A significant concern is that “Certification alone does not guarantee success; commitment to innovation is essential”

C-Level Executives were then the next group who were often highly positive, highlighting the fact that such a standard could bring structure to processes in times of uncertainty. For C-level executives, the value of ISO 56001 is intrinsically linked to strategic alignment and risk mitigation. However, they also raised concerns about the ROI of the systems and the need for the right governance frameworks to be put in place before it would make sense for their organisation to begin working with it. Until then, it is seen as a hypothetical good idea.

Finally, Innovation Practitioners within companies and Academics were the ones who shared the most concerns and neutral feelings towards the standard. From the practitioner perspective, this makes sense, as they would likely be the ones who would need to perform their duties within the new processes and structures of the standard systems. Many highlighted the fact that it was a good idea and that standardisation could help get buy-in from leadership, but also raised hesitations.

Most common hesitations mentioned by innovation practitioners

1. Fear that standardization will stifle creativity and spontaneous innovation
2. Concerns about increased bureaucracy and documentation requirements
3. Questions about whether certification adds genuine value or primarily serves consultants
4. Uncertainty about implementation costs versus tangible benefits

Interestingly, the neutral / negative sentiments were also more likely to be found on personal social media, compared to the more curated outputs of official company pages where sentiment was primarily positive.

Commonly Cited Reasons for Different Sentiments

The analysis of personal posts reveals a consistent set of reasons underpinning the expressed sentiments towards ISO 56001.

Positive Reasons

The overwhelming positive sentiment is driven by several key benefits that ISO 56001 is perceived to offer:

• Structured Framework and Predictability: The standard is lauded for providing a robust, systematic, and repeatable framework for managing innovation, moving it from ad-hoc activities to a predictable and enduring organizational capability. This brings rigor to innovation processes, similar to other established management disciplines.
• Enhanced Competitiveness and Value Realization: Professionals consistently highlight the standard’s ability to help organizations gain a competitive edge, accelerate innovation capabilities, improve resource allocation, and consistently generate and capture value from new products, services, processes, and business models.
• Fostering an Innovation Culture: ISO 56001 is seen as instrumental in promoting a culture that embraces innovation, encouraging creativity, risk-taking, continuous improvement, and empowering employees to contribute ideas without fear of failure.
• Improved Collaboration and Shared Language: A significant benefit cited is the standard’s emphasis on collaboration, breaking down silos, and establishing a common language and framework for innovation across departments and with external partners. This facilitates smoother communication and integrated efforts.
• Strategic Alignment and Risk Mitigation: The standard ensures that innovation efforts are aligned with organizational goals and objectives, minimizing wasted effort and maximizing impact. It also helps organizations identify, assess, and manage risks effectively, reducing the likelihood of failed initiatives.
• Integration with Existing Management Systems: Its compatibility with other ISO standards (e.g., ISO 9001, ISO 14001) through the High-Level Structure (HLS) is highly valued, allowing for seamless integration into existing management frameworks.
• Certifiability and Credibility: As a certifiable standard, ISO 56001 provides formal recognition of an organization’s mastery of innovation best practices, enhancing its credibility with investors, customers, and partners.

Neutral/Cautionary Reasons

While not explicitly negative, these points highlight areas of concern or nuance in the implementation and perception of ISO 56001:

• Certification Alone is Insufficient: A key cautionary note is that simply obtaining certification does not guarantee innovation success; genuine commitment to fostering innovation is essential. The standard is a tool, not a magic bullet, and its effectiveness depends on how it is applied and sustained.
• Auditor Expertise: There is a recognized need for auditors to possess a deep understanding of innovation, as it requires a different culture and mindset than quality control. This suggests a potential challenge in ensuring consistent and accurate assessments.
• Resistance to Change and Resource Constraints: Implementing an IMS requires time, money, and expertise, which can be challenging for some organizations. Employees and management may resist new processes or perceive innovation management as an added burden.
• Need for Continuous Evolution: The standard itself must evolve to remain relevant and impactful in a rapidly changing innovation landscape.
• Balancing Structure and Creativity: Critics sometimes argue that standards could limit flexibility and stifle creativity. However, proponents consistently counter this by emphasizing ISO 56001’s descriptive, non-prescriptive nature, which allows organizations to adapt guidelines to their unique cultures and goals.

Quotes from High-Impact Individuals

The following quotes from influential figures underscore the prevailing sentiment and key aspects of ISO 56001:

• Colin Nelson (Chief Consulting Officer, HYPE Innovation): “ISO 56001 isn’t just a set of guidelines; it’s a call to action for corporate innovators to think bigger and work smarter. By combining structure with adaptability, collaboration with independence, and learning with action, it empowers organizations to build innovation into their DNA.”
• Sébastien Perthuisot (Director, ALTEN’s Quality & Supply Chain Research Programme): “As was the case for quality standards, ISO 56001 should gradually become the norm in companies. This adoption could accelerate over a period of 10 years.“
• Prof. Benjamin Anderson (Co-Founder & Executive Director, DaVinci Business School): “The ISO 56001: Innovation Management Standard should, in my view, become an important key to unlocking and redirecting the innovation journey at work, both within developing and developed socio-economic contexts.“
• Alan Zettelmann (Speaker, International Innovation Forum Peru 2024): “Companies now have the opportunity to get behind the wheel of a Formula 1, but their employees still need to graduate from karting school.” (Highlighting the need for proper training alongside the standard).”

So it is clear that while there is a lot of positive sentiment towards the ISO 56001 standard, there is also some public hesitation.

And from my experience with implementing large change projects, especially in the context of innovation, this hesitation will only become stronger the more people feel like a change is coming towards them.

What may appear to be a minority with a neutral or negative opinion now most likely reflects that those views are just not being shared publicly yet. But that does not mean that they do not exist.

And companies thinking of implementing ISO 56001 should try to preemptively address these concerns well in advance for their efforts to have any chance of success.

Recommendations for Organizations

For organizations considering or embarking on the adoption of ISO 56001, it is clear from looking at what practitioners are saying that there will likely be some hesitation and frustration in trying to implement the standard.

The following recommendations can help address their major concerns, and gain buy-in to help with the change management journey to help turn them from doubters into active champions:

1. Secure Genuine Leadership Commitment: Beyond mere endorsement, ensure top management actively champions the innovation initiative, allocates necessary resources, and fosters a culture that embraces experimentation and learning from failure. This commitment is crucial for translating strategic intent into operational reality.
2. Invest in Training and Capability Building: Recognize that implementing ISO 56001 requires a shift in mindset and new competencies across all levels of the organization. Provide accessible training and tools to equip employees with the skills to think creatively and apply innovation frameworks effectively.
3. Tailor and Adapt the Framework: While ISO 56001 provides a structured blueprint, it is descriptive, not prescriptive. Organizations should adapt the guidelines to their unique culture, business goals, and types of innovation (incremental, adjacent, breakthrough) to ensure flexibility and avoid rigidity.
4. Prioritize Clear Innovation Strategy and Communication: Define clear innovation objectives aligned with overall strategic goals. Communicate this strategy transparently to all employees, ensuring they understand what problems the organization seeks to solve and how their contributions fit into the broader innovation intent.
5. Foster Cross-Functional Collaboration: Actively break down silos by establishing cross-functional teams and promoting a shared language of innovation. Encourage both internal and external partnerships to leverage diverse perspectives and competencies.
6. Implement Continuous Improvement Loops: Establish clear metrics for innovation performance and conduct regular reviews to assess what is working, what is not, and where adjustments are needed. Treat failed experiments as learning opportunities to continuously refine processes.

The following two tabs change content below.

Creativity & Innovation expert: I help individuals and companies build their creativity and innovation capabilities, so you can develop the next breakthrough idea which customers love. Chief Editor of Ideatovalue.com and Founder / CEO of Improvides Innovation Consulting. Coach / Speaker / Author / TEDx Speaker / Voted as one of the most influential innovation bloggers.

Latest posts by Nick Skillicorn (see all)