Making Innovation Flourish

Tim Berners-Lee on the future of the web

Just finished listening to Jonathan Freedland interviewing Sir Tim Berners-Lee live on stage at the Innovation Edge conference.  It's always odd seeing your heroes, and for once, he didn't disappoint.  TBL was charming, self-effacing, and more importantly, made interesting and intelligent points on the future of the web.  NESTA has helped fund the Web Science Research Initiative which he has set up, and he outlined most of his reasons for setting this up in an all-too brief video linkup.

What lessons can be learnt from the way he developed the web?
You need to give people space and time to find solutions.  Give them a chance to try and see the bigger picture, to find the generalised solution where possible.  And if you are asking or funding someone to develop a solution then don't micromanage them.  Specifically, if you tell them what to produce in too much detail  you'll end up with the same old ideas you had. 

And bear in mind that the end destination can come from left field - he quotes a possibly apocryphal story of Einstein's 'if we knew what we were doing it wouldn't be called research.'.

What are his hopes and fears for the 'adolescence of the web'?
Berners-Lee was very keen to point out the distinction between the people who use the web (and therefore the society that this creates or reflects) and the technology, or 'substrate' as he calls it, that underpins the web. 

Fundamentally, he sees the web as 'humanity interacting' or more prosaically, as 'humanity connected'.  Technology should not get in the way or dominate.  So, the web should be neutral, enabling new ways of democracy, new ways of doing science etc...
 
What is the rationale behind web science?
"We found that people doing interesting things tended to fall between various stools - computer science, psychology, economics etc.  The web needs to be thought of less as a series of connected computers to 'humanity connected'.  There are more web pages out there than neurons in your brain.   It's a very big system - one which we rely on - and it is not obvious what its properties are?   Will the blogosphere keep a check on the press?  Or will the blogosphere turn into a rumour mill and spread hatred etc - as part of a cultural revolution?
 
Is the web stable?  TBL is arguing that we need a science to understand this.  And we have a duty to understand it, so that we can take care of it.  He spoke of the unexpected or unintended effects of the micro leading the macro - eg ebay's role in driving down the prices of new items.

How fragile is the web?
Commenting on the 'megalapse' or the potential for the web to meltdown.  TBL argues it's more subtle threat than this.  Will the web be a force for the good?  The web may work fine but the society may not be one you want to live in, eg the use of email has arguably passed the tipping point of spam usage.

Is the future of innovation about collaboration?
The world is full of groups working and making their 'own language' .  The web should be making this more transparent and enabling more people to contribute.  Challenges in medical advances can only be done collaboratively, the problem is simply too big for an individual to keep in their head.  How does this work when one person's head has half the idea and if another has the other half.  How can the web help enable this solution?

Well, how can it?

*Update - podcast now online here

Making Connections

In the latest essay from our series on how to equip young people for a rapidly changing world, entrepreneur Ben Way argues that making connections is key. He notes “the challenge is to learn from the theory and make it work in reality. One way to do this is by ensuring children have more exposure to the real world at a younger age. They should spend time in businesses and the workplace to see what the world is really like.”

This view echoes current policy thinking and Government initiatives, such as the 14-19 reforms (including the introduction of the Diplomas, the review of the Framework for Career and Work-Related Learning 11-19, and Enterprise Education).

Ben’s essay raises a number of questions. In particular, what types of ‘real-life’ experiences encourage young people to develop the skills and attitudes necessary to succeed in the future? How do we ensure that the experiences provided are relevant, and encourage learning and reflection? In what ways can the system facilitate effective connections between young people and employers?

We are developing a strand of work that is exploring these questions. We believe that for young people to appreciate the challenges and opportunities that the future world of work will present, they need to become familiar with the ever-increasing variety of careers, ways of working and emerging sectors of the economy.

Working closely with the DCSF, we are developing projects that will test how to deliver work-related learning in a way that will provide this. To inform these pilots, we have commissioned some studies to examine how businesses in the creative industries, the third sector and rural economy can become more engaged in education in a way that will be mutually beneficial.

Another approach to making connections is through interdisciplinarity. The world of work is not compartmentalised into subjects, so why does the education system encourage young people to learn in this way? There are a number of projects attempting to address this. For instance, the Young Foundation’s Studio School programme aims to teach the National Curriculum through interdisciplinary, enterprise-themed projects with a strong focus on practical work and enterprise. NESTA’s Crucible programme offers early-stage researchers an opportunity to develop new collaborations across disciplines. Can such a programme be adapted for young people?

As always, I welcome your views on this and, in particular, on what is the most effective way of linking theory and practice to ensure that young people succeed in the future.

Preparing for the Future: preparing for the long-term by embracing the short-term

Young people do not seem to be under any illusions that the future working environment is going to be tough and that a job for life is no more.  This is borne out in research that we commissioned on young people’s perceptions of the future world of work and is also confirmed in our latest essay on how to equip young people for a rapidly changing world. 

In this article, 17-year-old Phil Croft argues that the future workplace is likely to be based on short-term contracts.  He puts forward some interesting suggestions for helping young people deal with this - from encouraging greater adaptability in students to facilitating more project-based work in schools.

For some students, more of an emphasis on applying their knowledge, rather than just acquiring it, is likely to improve their motivation for learning. Where the project-based learning is grounded in real challenges and dilemmas facing organisations, both learners and organisations can benefit.

We are working with Space Unlimited, a group that facilitates groups of young people to work on a particular problem posed by a company.  Space Unlimited has found that their programme provides skills development for the participating students and fresh insights for the companies.

Of course, I’m mindful that such schemes require time and resources to broker but surely the benefits outweigh this.  What do you think?

Preparing for the Future

It’s difficult to prepare for something that is uncertain, unclear and unpredictable.  But that is precisely what our education system is tasked with doing as it strives to equip young people with the skills and knowledge needed for a rapidly changing world. 

We have just posted on our website the first of a series of essays that provides different viewpoints on this theme.  It’s from Richard Reeves, the commentator on the future workplace. 

Richard argues that the debate on the merits of academic qualifications over vocational learning misses the point. Instead he asserts that what is important is that young people are supported in developing the characteristics and attitudes necessary to support lifelong learning. 

Research that we commissioned found that young people concur with this view believing that their own passion, motivation and personal attributes will be more important in helping them pursue the career of their choice than qualifications.

We will be posting one of these essays every week on our website and we welcome your ideas on this subject. 

A recurring theme in these articles is how different the workplace of the future will be and how the nature of work itself is altering.  This, together with globalisation, demographic shifts, and challenges such as environmental sustainability, means that the demands on today’s young people will be very high. 

I can’t help agreeing with the French philosopher Paul Valery when he declared “The future isn’t what it used to be.”

So how do you best prepare young people for this?  I’m keen to hear your views.

Making innovative places (part one)

Over the next few days I will be reflecting on the first NESTA Summit: Making Innovative Places. It was quite a day. Stephen Timms, Sir Richard Leese and AnnaLee Saxenian delivered keynote addresses and we launched three final reports, one interim report and one policy briefing. 

That all sounds very impressive but I said it then and I’ll say it again: the 90 delegates were collectively as impressive as the ‘big names’ and I hope that much of the value will live on in the connections made as much as the evidence heard and opinions formed.

‘Yesterday’ actually started on Tuesday. The Daily Telegraph picked up on a pre-publication copy of ‘Rural Innovation’ and extensively quoted Dr. Sami Mahroum, the NESTA Senior Policy Analyst who has driven our ‘place’ agenda.  In a significant article, Richard Tyler talked of a ‘new industrial revolution’ that was going ignored by central innovation policymaking. He wasn’t wrong.

 

The most important question an entrepreneur has to answer

Sherry Coutu (in her article in the 'what I wish I'd known'  series) explains that “solving someone’s problem” is at the heart of a business.

On the face of it, it appears an obvious consideration, however, a large proportion of the companies we see can not satisfactory articulate the problem they are solving. I put it down to a reluctance of some early stage entrepreneurs to really get to know their potential customers early on in a business’s life. This hesitancy to speak to a real customer can lead to outrageous assumptions on the depth of the so called ‘problem’ that they are solving.

Answering the question ‘what problem are you solving’ is fundamental to getting to the heart of the value of your business…if that is not enough reason to reconsider this concept then consider that every sensible investor I know asks a version of this question at some point in their first meeting with a company that is looking for investment. In short it is essential that you and everyone in your business can give a clear, articulate answer.

Things I wish I'd known...

The BVCA, together with NESTA, have approached 16 highly successful technology entrepreneurs, many of them involved in spinouts from universities, to provide a short letter addressed to an unknown aspirant tech entrepreneur under the title of ‘things I wished I'd known!’.

We’ll be publishing 1 article a week on our website over the coming months - starting from tomorrow - and I really recommend you take a look. We’ve ended up with some extraordinarily honest insights on what it is really like when you are at the coalface trying to build a technology business.

Just to give you a flavour…

• Steve Purdham  - founded SurfControl –a global internet security company that recently sold for $400million
• Peter Denyer – he is the founder of a spin out that makes millions of those little cameras in mobile phones
• David Tatchell – founded Flomerics that now employees more that 200 people in 12 countries

I plan on commenting on some of the insights along the way and it would be great to hear any other takes on the articles.

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.

Net taxation could kill collaborative innovation

Soon the US government will decide whether the ban on taxation of internet access should continue or not. If the ban is lifted, Americans could be taxed per access or amount of bandwidth used instead of the current blanket per month fee for broadband. Not only is this a backward step for consumers (remember dial-up?), this clearly has societal implications, allowing only the moneyed classes to readily access high-bandwidth content such as video, or to stay online for long periods in Second Life or MMORPGs. But there's so much more at stake than missing out on YouTube or online games. The entire economy of the internet would change. Would you do your banking, grocery shopping or check-in for flights online if you had to pay extra to do so?

The rise of cheap broadband also opened the door to exponential growth in online social networks and collaborative tools such as Basecamp and Central Desktop, not to mention online meeting tools and VOIP. There are millions of people online every day, collaborating on projects and ideas, sharing knowledge in ways that weren't possible before, and just plain getting things done. People from oppostie sides of the world can collaborate in real time without ever leaving their chairs. Taxation such as that being debated could kill these kinds of online collaboration. Without cheap & easy access would projects such as the IBM InnovationJam thrive - or even exist?

If the US were to lift the ban, other countries could be inspired to follow suit - I only hope that those of us who live our lives online can make sure this doesn't happen. It also highlights the fact that many of the factors in creating a climate where innovation can thrive reach way beyond 'innovation policy' or personal  entrepreneurship.

Ideo, Interdisciplinarity and Enterprise

Please Note : NESTA Connect's Blog posts have now moved