In a Flemish newspaper of yesterday (De TIJD, sorry in Dutch), I read one of these many messages containing an ever returning misunderstanding in innovation. The Flemisch prime minister (of course) claims that more innovation is needed for Flanders. Innovation (according to him) is taking risks, making errors, being adventurous. Encouraging start, indeed. He even claims that "creativity and dynamics need to emerge bottom-up, and not to be forced top-down". But then it comes: education and training is not adaptad to this. There would be a mismatch between what schools teach and what companies need. Schools are too conceptual, and companies would need down to earth procedures. And there we go again in order to fall in the same ever returning trap.
There is nothing so practical as a good concept (since it is easy to apply, and for many different circumstances adaptable). And equally, nothing is so theoretical (since it is not generally applicable) as a detailed procedure. Detailed procedures not only cause often problems in a real life case, they certainly limit the creative potential of possible innovators.
Companies claim that academia would be too theoretical (but they in fact mean too conceptual), ignoring that a good concept has general applicability. They consider themselves as practitioners, following a series of strict, pre-defined, often tailor-made procedures. What is often called theoretical is indeed practical, and what is called practical seems in practice often not feasible. The innovation paradox I would like to call it.