How do we build policy to support user-led innovation?

Last week, NESTA hosted Eric von Hippel, Karim Lakhani and a number of their associates for a series of events exploring user-led innovation. Two major points stayed with me:

Firstly, building specific policies to support user-led innovation is challenging.  That, however, is not the same as making sure that other policies do not harm it.  If Eric’s work is correct (and its methodology is excellent) then users are the real source of much innovation.  We must therefore be careful not to enact new IP laws or give free rein to new technologies (like DRM) that might restrict this freedom to innovate.

The challenging nature of building policies to support user-led innovation does not, however, let policymakers off the hook. There are several quick wins that could be achieved simply by making sure that user-led innovation is taken into account in existing initiatives.  If users are so innovative, why should they not feature prominently in Foresight-type programmes, Innovation Platforms and Knowledge Transfer Networks?

Secondly, Eric is often mischaracterised as being ‘anti-IP’ – placed alongside the West coast crusaders and their acolytes in campaigning for the overturning of the international IP system.  This isn’t the case.  Eric argues that user-led innovation needs IP but it needs more intelligent IP that allows more sharing of information and different types of rights. Broadly-speaking, however, any new extensions of existing rights would hurt user-innovators.  But Eric doesn’t make this case like a deranged zealot.  He simply points out that if users are often innovators, it’s good for all of us if the state doesn’t prevent them from doing more of this in the future.

Comments

[Eric von Hippel]

Great thanks to Richard Halkett for organizing such a good meeting! I was happy to present research findings at the meeting along with Karim Lakhani, and also to offer policy suggestions. Many people able to significantly influence the policy debate on open and user-centered innovation in the UK attended - which was very helpful.

I found it very encouraging that our discussions went well beyond evidence for the reality or the potential utility of open and user-centered innovation - matters that by now have been established by researchers in the field.

Instead, the main focus of comments seemed to be: Let's get on with exploring how best to implement this form of innovation in each commenter's field. Potential fields of application mentioned ranged from product development to the improvement of government services such as health care.

I hope you keep NESTA strongly involved with moving the matter of open and user-centered innovation forward in the UK. Certainly I will stay involved in such efforts if that would be helpful!