Making Innovation Flourish

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.

 

Building effective university-industry links

Yesterday, NESTA hosted a series of events with Silicon Valley Connect that involved venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and academics from California.  The underlying topic was, inevitably, how to replicate (whatever that means) Silicon Valley’s success in the UK.

More specifically, however, the panel I chaired focused on how to stimulate university-industry collaboration.  It featured speakers from Stanford’s Media X programme, Turner Broadcasting, Google, a Stanford engineer and two representatives from the UK – from Cambridge Enterprises and UCL Advances.  A few clear themes emerged.

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.

Five ways universities drive innovation

Our latest Policy Briefing focuses on the five ways that universities drive innovation.  Universities have traditionally had three main missions: undertaking research; teaching; and transferring knowledge. The UK’s increasing need to innovate to meet the economic and social challenges of the 21st century will place further pressure on these roles, but importantly will also introduce two more – universities’ international and regional missions.

Universities increasingly provide important national and regional links into the global knowledge economy. They exchange knowledge, gather intelligence and facilitate international flows of highly-skilled people who, in turn, create and attract high value-added businesses. As powerful institutions with well-connected and highly-educated leaders, they are also important actors in regional networks, and help lead the design and delivery of economic development strategies.

However, few universities can excel in all five roles. Each must choose where to concentrate its efforts depending on its strengths and regional requirements. Government should encourage greater interaction between universities and the wider economy and society, and ensure that research funding encourages innovation.

As ever, I'd welcome any comments on this publication....

Innovation Technology: How new technologies are changing the way we innovate

NESTA’s Provocations are regular extended essays by leading thinkers that showcase
thought-provoking work on innovation.  In 'Innovation Technology: How new technologies are changing the way we innovate', David Gann and Mark Dodgson argue that a new set of technologies is emerging that enables firms to innovate more rapidly, efficiently and accurately than ever before. This 'Innovation Technology' (IvT) includes eScience, virtual reality, simulation and modelling techniques, and rapid prototyping.

Indeed, it is possible that it will have as profound an impact on economic growth and social well-being in today's knowledge economy as the development of machine tools had on the industrial economy of the mid-19th century.

Over the next decade, understanding what IvT does, how to use it and where its limitations lie will prove critical for those running businesses, working in firms and providing public services. As a result, government policy-makers at all levels would do well to appreciate its implications.

I welcome your thoughts...

From lightbulbs to 3D TV

Please note : This post has moved

Last week I was fortunate to spend a day at the High Tech Campus in Eindhoven in the Netherlands. The site itself is very impressive and hosts around 5000 engineers working on new technologies with ‘Open Innovation’ as their motto. And yet as recently as 2003, the site used to host just one big company, Philips.

Philips made a very deliberate decision to open up the way they operate, and the way they innovate. A clear indication of how things hare changed in a short space of time is the fact that there are now hosts over 40 businesses academic research institute and network called MiPlaza where companies share equipment and services such as cleanrooms. As a symbolic move, in 2005 they even removed the Philips sign at the entrance to the site, despite the major historical connections with the site.

We were fortunate to hear their Chief Technology Officer talk about their approach to open innovation. They now realise that it is much easier to sell successful businesses than it is to sell new technologies, and so they active spin out companies or technologies in the same was as many Universities.

I always find it fascinated to see how organisations re-invent themselves but this was made blatantly clear when we saw how Philips has moved on from starting out in lighting, progressing into Consumer Electronics, and now with a major focus is on Healthcare. The best ‘I want one of those’ moments came when they showcased a pretty spectacular 3D TV – like 3D cinema but without the cardboard red and green specs.

I am struck by the desire and ambition of companies like Philips to engage with ‘the outside world’ in a proactive way, and the opportunities for smaller companies, universities or individuals are significant, though it’s not always easy. Therefore, the theme of corporate open innovation is one of the three core themes that we will investigate through NESTA Connect launching in 2 weeks tomorrow and we’ll post again on this subject over the coming months.

Trust, technology and transliteracy

Please note: This post has moved

I attended an event on 'Transliteracy'€™ at the Institute of Creative Technologies (IOCT) at De Montford University yesterday. As a simple soul, I normally like to shy away from words of more than 3 or so syllables and from difficult (to say) concepts such as ‘interdisciplinarity’ and ‘transliteracy’. Having said that, I was intrigued by the work Prof Sue Thomas and her colleagues are doing at the IOCT so decided to participate.

Transliteracy is fundamentally it is about communicating effectively in different ways and sometimes using different technologies, but has a much more detailed definition you can find here.

Effective communication and building trust gets a lot more difficult when technology is involved as you don’t have the usual body language and eye contact that we often take for granted in face to face interaction. Blogs, social networks or online environments like Second Life, all have their own cultures and etiquette, which are often not obvious to the uninitiated.

Also, it is often said that something like 95% of communication is non-verbal. If this true, then there are real challenges to communicate across distance using technology, which is usually text based. The style of communication also varies massively depending on the communication channel (e.g. irony is difficult in email as I frequently discover to my cost, small talk is the norm at the beginning of face-2-face meetings but not in some other forms of communication etc.).

In particular, when talking about stimulating innovation, I would argue that all innovation is fundamentally collaborative. With increasing specialisation in business and academia in recent years, this has led to an increasing need for organisations and individuals to develop wider, more open networks, partnerships and trusted communities to share ideas and to innovate. In particular, a powerful source of innovation is to collaborate across traditional boundaries, be they organisational, disciplinary or geographic.

Therefore, much of the discussion centred upon how can we communicate effectively and build trust across these disparate communities. Technology definitely has a major role to play in supporting these boundary-disrupting collaborations, but perhaps there is a need to further develop most peoples ‘transliteracy’ skills (idea for a future Nesta programme perhaps).

Another possibly interesting observation (to me at least) was that, through the use of technology, it may reduce the need for facilitators or super-connectors (which are critical in off-line collaborations) because more background information is typically available in a technology facilitated collaboration. For example, it can be easier to ‘scan the room’ for interesting people to talk to in an online environment where peoples profiles are there for everybody to see. If only most networking events or parties were so easy to navigate. And yet, if you are unfortunate enough to get stuck in the (virtual) corner talking to that boring bloke who just split up with his girlfriend and he wants you to talk through it’s last days of their relationship in real time, it is still far easier to ‘exit stage left’.

I’m pleased to say that the event was interesting and populated with a diverse and interesting bunch of people, who surprisingly were not technologists, but included sociologists, anthropologists, musicians, writers and a museum curator! We probably posed more questions than answered, but I guess that is par for the course at this stage. As de Bono argues in his book ‘Lateral Thinking’, it is important to suspend judgement and not kill off an idea too early until it is more fully formed. I think there is still a lot to do with this concept of transliteracy, but it certainly provided some food for thought.

PS. Being flippant for a moment, I am increasingly conscious of the trend to coin a phrase ‘xyz’ and then for ever more being referred to as the person who coined that phrase/term/meme. Transliteracy could be included in this category, as could crowdsourcing, web 2.0, the long tail, the wisdom of crowds and many more. I want to capture the zeitgeist by coining a new meta-phrase which encapsulates this phenomenon – how about ‘coinification’? As in “that’s just utter coinification”. :)