Given the huge importance of innovations for the survival of companies, it is not surprising that many scientific studies focus on finding the best practices and success factors of innovation management. The recommendations based on this type of research are characterized by a one-size-fits-all approach in which the fact that companies operate in different contexts is often totally neglected. According to these types of research it almost seems that the factors governing success and failure apply to any company, whatever its organizational structure, the industry in which it is operating or the type of innovation it is developing. However, empirical research has shown that companies do not adopt a single way of innovation, but that they adjust their innovation processes according to their context. Indeed, organizations that have a flexible innovation process, which they change from time to time, seem to be the best innovators. We call the process of adjusting the innovation process 'contextual innovation'. It appears that companies adapt their innovation to their specific context, in which there are four different layers: type of innovation, type of organization, type of industry and type of country or culture. The mechanism of contextual innovation is illustrated by two cases: Shell and Philips. These companies do not have a single corporate innovation process, but they change their innovation process depending on the specific context in which their business units operate. This has resulted in a broad range of innovation management approaches within both organizations, which contradicts the claim that there is only one way to innovate successfully. For instance, the concept of the lead user plays an important role in the innovation process in the business units of Philips that serve business-to-business markets. In business units of Philips which focus on developing new technologies greater emphasis is put on developing and maintaining business alliances and cooperating closely with technology incubators.