Of course I can be wrong (I usually am), but the way I look at things "innovation process" is an oxymoron.
Process, in the business world, is what you put in place to have predictable results. You have manufacturing processes, development processes, testing processes...
It seems obvious to me that if you're after innovation, predictability somehow shouldn't be part of the picture. You can use processes to help structure the exploration, I'll give you that, but I personally see that as a dangerous thing, and here's why: a lot of people (far too many in here) confuse the meanings of two words, "process" and "results".
It's not a direct translation, but there's a firm believe that a process is all you need to get results, and if you follow the process well you'll get your results.
Now, while this can be true in, say, manufacturing, I don't think it helps innovation one bit.
What happens instead is that anybody, even people that aren't naturally cut for it, feels entitled to drive an innovation effort, just because they have a process to follow. Furthermore, the idea that the process guarantees results prevents people from trying to break the rules (of the process itself), and where I come from breaking the rules, or at least bending them, is one of the key ingredients of innovation.
Luckily, to quote Corinne Maier, in the corporate world "..you will not be judged by how well you perform, you will be judged by how well you conform", therefore as long as you follow process and check all the boxes, you'll get your performance bonus.
Even if you're driving the company into the ground.
Mahalo
