Abraham Maslow would surely begin to address this query by pointing to the environment: "The key question isn't 'What fosters creativity?' But it is why in God's name isn’t everyone creative? Where was the human potential lost? How was it crippled? I think therefore a good question might be not why do people create? But why do people not create or innovate? We have got to abandon that sense of amazement in the face of creativity, as if it were a miracle if anybody created anything."

PS: Conflating intelligence (without specifying what type, à la Howard Gardner or Daniel Goleman, some of which are not innate and can be learned), innovativeness (the process, not quality, of introducing something new or different, usually in groups but at least with organizational support since the product, service, or process must then be marketed), and creativity (the use of imagination or original ideas, individually or in a group, in the production of work) is not likely to reveal interconnections: the variables are very disparate.

Dear Vasudeva.

"Is there any interconection and similarities of innate Intelligence, innovativeness and creativity ? Is intelligence is a product of hereditary or environment of human being?" -- You ask.

Let me start by saying that most of the authors do not believe in an innate intelligence, innovativeness and creativity. I also espouse this perpective. What we inherit is a series of possibilities or biolological predispositions to be intelligent, innovators and creators. These possibilities only become actualized in an appropriate physical and social milieu. No one is intelligent, innovative and creative in a social vacuum. Also, for us to be creative and innovative in any area of knowledge we should often, if not always, to be hard-workers. Thomas Edison once remarked that geniuses are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration or hard work. This ideas echoes in Einsten's thought when he remarked that is it only in dictionnaires that the word "success" comes first thand the word (hard) "work"). Thus, intelligence, innovativeness and creativity are to be seen as an interaction between one's biological heritage and one's environment.

Intelligence, innovativeness and creativity are often seen as synonymous, but they aren't, even though they are generally interconnected and intertwineed. Criativity is often seen as one's ability to have divergent thinking and form new patterns, be it in the scientic or artistic domains, just to cite two examples.

Great minds, such as J. Piaget, A. Einestein, and S. Hawking conceived of intelligence as one's ability to adapt to changes in the physical and social miliew. Intelligence, however, is not an unitary concept. We can speak, for example, of a psychometric and quantitative intelligence or one's IQ, such as assessed on mental tests, of types of qualitative intelligence, such as those defined by J. Piaget (e.g., operational formal intelligence), of multiple intelligencies, such as those conceptualized by H. Gardner (e.g., interpersonal intelligence), of emotional intelligence, such as that defined by D. Goldman, and so forth. Innovation is not much different from creativity. As I see it, innovation or innovativeness has more to do with the practical or technological domain than, for example, with, say, the basic or fundamental domain and rbasic research.

This is a short answer to your question. There is a huge literature on intelligence, creativity and innovativeness.

Best regards,

Orlando