Making Innovation Flourish

On Evidence-Based Policymaking

We take it for granted that a solid evidence base is a key requirement for government interventions. The Department for Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform’s (BERR) five principles of good regulation state that any regulation should be “transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted”.

Yet the European Commission – in its proposed Term Extension Directive – is calling for an extension of the European copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 95 years, which all the independent evidence suggests would be bad news for emerging talent and for consumers.

The theoretical trade-offs are well-known: an extended term of protection, it is argued, provides incentives for musicians to create new recordings, but it also prevents artists from innovating on the back of published music and diminishes the choice of music available on the market. Which effect dominates, and the case for term extension – should rest on a careful consideration of the empirical analysis.

Happily, an international group of 50 leading academics has done just that in the Bournemouth University statement submitted last month to the European Commission.  The academics have carefully reviewed the available independent evidence and have shown overwhelmingly that the proposed term extension would be bad for Europe’s creativity (though good for a relatively small number of long-living performers and their estates).

The academics wrote to The Times earlier this week to call on policymakers to examine the case in light of the evidence.  Three cheers for the academics!

Making innovative places (part three - conclusions)

Concluding thoughts on the first NESTA Summit: Making Innovative Places, held on 12 December at NESTA's head office in London.

Some further observations on the Place Summit we held last week.  Read back for some earlier thoughts on the event.

5.    It’s a jungle out there – John Goddard took issue with the concept of an ecosystem, claiming that in an ‘ordinary region’ (another Benneworth-ism – not as insulting as it sounds), it was less a smoothly-functioning ecosystem and more a policy-strewn jungle.  Looking at the recent roll-call of recent ‘place-based’ initiatives, he might have a point.
  Watch John Goddard's speech (as part of the panel session)   

6.    It’s the people, stupid – the more the researchers and panellists talked about absorptive capacity, about leadership, about innovation beyond science & technology, the more we came back to a common theme: people.  AnnaLee Saxenian is known as the originator of the concept of ‘brain circulation’ in her research into the origins of the growth of Silicon Valley.  Notably, however, innovative people are far away from traditional innovation policy, which touches on them only rarely – such as the carriers of ideas in Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.  When AnnaLee talked about policy, she talked only about the importance of indirect policies (no ‘innovation policy’ in sight) – and in particular about immigration laws and the role of the (previously) most excellent California Community College system.
    See AnnaLee Saxenian's keynote speech 

7.    Crisis, what crisis?  There was, unsurprisingly, some scholarly disagreement during the day.  Paul Benneworth’s work (and that of a team from the Young Foundation in a forthcoming NESTA publication on local social innovation) pointed clearly to the role of crisis in forcing a city or region to get its act together.  This, however, posed a problem for our path dependence specialists, who seemed to imply that a region had very limited ability to change direction, crisis or no crisis.  Ron Martin gave the example of the North West of England in the 19th century which continually failed to adapt to the rise and rise of overseas cloth producers, despite massive mill closures.  I think that the key to unlocking this dichotomy is in a word that Paul used: perception.  The crisis needs to be seen, comprehended and acted upon by the existing regional leaders.  If that’s the case then urgent action can result.  If it’s not, then stagnation and collapse won’t be far away.

My final comment is one of observation and challenge.  Richard Leese talked of a city’s ‘strategic capacity’ in decision-making and leadership.  Charlie Leadbeater observed that Richard himself had over the course of 20 years walked the line between civic boosterism and challenge – something that is often missing in other regional leaders.  The challenge, therefore, is how to develop more regional leaders like that: sophisticated consumers of analysis who are able to take what works, challenge what doesn’t and bring people with them on their regional innovation journey.

What do you think?

Lord Sainsbury's Review of the Government's Science & Innovation Policies

On Friday morning, I had the honour of attending the Prime Minister’s launch, at No 10, of Lord Sainsbury's Review of the Government's Science & Innovation Policies.  He responded favourably on behalf of the Government.  Of course, firm commitments will only become clear when the Comprehensive Spending Review is released tomorrow. However, he did make four specific statements of support:

1. Bringing together funding from the TSB, RDAs and Research Councils to deploy £1bn in support of innovation over the next three years.  He said that this would be ‘written into’ this week’s public spending announcements.
2. Doubling the number of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships.
3. Launching a ‘major campaign’ to support STEM skills, building on the recommendations in the Review.
4. Forcing government departments to allocate a share of their research spend to early-stage high-tech businesses. He further confirmed that this would be recorded.

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.

Reaching out from the creative silo

Our latest policy briefing (Reaching out from the creative silo: the arts, creativity and innovation) calls for an updated policy debate on the creative industries. As a mature sector, these industries must face up to the challenges of their low productivity growth and of ensuring that the benefits reach out from the creative silo and influence wider creative contributions in the UK's economy and society.

Research in this area must treat the arts and creative industries with the same degree of rigour as traditional industries. By applying existing models of innovation that are known to work in more traditional sectors, policymakers can develop a richer set of interventions than public funding alone. In our view, supporting creative enterprises as they identify and adopt new technologies, helping them think through the IP implications and supporting collaborative networks are high priorities.

We'd welcome your thoughts...

• NESTA Policy Briefings
• NESTA Creative Pioneer Programme