Futures-Diagnosis

Diagnosing the future of the Internet and innovation and their social impact

THE TORY MANIFESTO: INNOVATION NOT INVITED

The Conservative Party launched their ‘Invitation to join the government of Britain’ Manifesto today. Like Labour, this makes pretty depressing reading for those concerned with the recession, innovation and future funding for research. Surprising that a party that claims to want to end big government (and raise individual choice), ‘government’ is the largest word in the text cloud above. (This text cloud has the same settings as the Labour Party one published on this blog yesterday).

Breaking down the Tory manifesto results in a similar desultory picture. In a Manifesto which is close to 30,000 words:

  • ‘Innovation’ is mentioned only eight times;
  • ‘Research & Development’ is mentioned as a couplet only twice, while ‘Research’ appears seven times;
  • ‘Productivity’ comes up seven times, and
  • ‘Recession’ four times.

Filed under: R&D and Innovation, Science and Innovation, ,

THE LABOUR PARTY MANIFESTO: A FUTURE WITHOUT INNOVATION

As a quick analysis of the Labour Party’s election Manifesto published today, I’ve generated a word cloud from the text of the Manifesto using Wordle. The cloud gives greater prominence to words that appear most frequently. For those who are interested, I have set this at a cut-off point of 500 words and arranged the results in alphabetical order (from left to right). This is a crude representation of the content of the Manifesto. But it says a great deal.

The Manifesto is approximately 30,000 words.

  • The term ‘innovation’ appears 11 times throughout;
  • ‘Research and Development’ appears once (under the section on Investing in science and research, Section 1 on Growth);
  • ‘Productivity’ appears 3 times – once coupled with ‘innovation’ but only in reference to the effect of ‘stronger employee engagement’ (whatever that may mean);
  • ‘Recession’ appears 12 times (mostly descriptive, with eight references to the current situation);
  • All the above terms thus do not even appear in this cloud (which as stated above has a cut off point of 500 words).

The words a that stand out, particularly ‘new’, ‘people’, ‘work’, ‘care’, ‘britain’ express the vacuous character of the Manifesto and the absence of real content. The crude emphasis upon ‘new’ is a sure sign of the absence of anything new.

I intend doing a similar analysis of all the other Party Manifestos as they are published this week. Once they are all done, I will write a more substantial piece on the content of what they are saying with respect to the recession, innovation and the future of economic growth. This is being done in relation to Big Potatoes: the London Manifesto for Innovation and will be presented as part of my speech at the ‘Innovation, R&D and the General Election’ public meeting at the Royal Society on the evening of 27 April 2010.

Filed under: R&D and Innovation, Science and Innovation, ,

INNOVATION CAPACITY IS STILL IN A STATE

I was really struck by this article on Amazon’s Kindle from the New Republic website based upon an article on the HBR Blog ‘Is the US Killing its Innovation Machine?’ by Professor Willy C Shih, titled ‘The U.S. Can’t Manufacture the Kindle and That’s a Problem’. It highlights the opposite of what every globalisation guru asserts: namely, that far from innovation being an open playing field, innovation remains intimately tied to the nation-state and the national ecosystems they nurture.

The author details why Amazon’s Kindle cannot be manufactured in the US, despite the fact that it was designed in California and its key innovation  — its electronic ink (the tiny microcapsule beads used in its electrophoretic display) — was invented and is being made in the USA by E Ink, a company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He reveals that Asian manufacturers are capturing the vast majority of the value added by manufacturing the e-reader itself. Even more worrisome for him, he sees this growing capacity in Asia almost certainly resulting in the loss of control by the US of e-paper display technologies and the future innovations that spring from them.

VALUE ADDED MANUFACTURING

The majority of the value added in manufacturing the Kindle is being captured in Asia. Why? Simply because the key components that make up the Kindle cannot be made in the USA:

  • E Ink had to have the glass made in Asia because the companies there are the only ones that can deposit patterned silicon on sheets of glass. That capability left U.S. shores when American companies failed to keep up in the LCD flat-panel-display industry;
  • The next most valuable component, the wireless broadband data module, supplied by San Diego-based Novatel Wireless, is made in Korea. Its value of $39.50, includes a $13 Qualcomm CDMA chip, also manufactured in Asia. Though chips like this are still designed in the U.S., the vast majority of them are manufactured in chip foundries in Taiwan, Singapore, and China, and then packaged somewhere in the region;
  • The Kindle contains a microprocessor chip supplied by Austin, Texas-based Freescale Semiconductor but it is not clear where there is manufactured (according to the author). But all the other electronic components, including the lithium-polymer battery, were designed and are being manufactured in Asia, where the capabilities reside thanks to its strong consumer-electronics industry.

Professor Shih concludes that of the total cost of $185, perhaps $40 to $50 is captured in the US and asks if this is a problem. He notes that Amazon is well positioned to capture most of the value of the Kindle and a healthy portion of the profits generated by sales of e-books to Kindle owners including Kindle’s wireless data service, which uses Sprint’s US-based data network.

So why the concern?

Besides the impact this has on the US’s trade deficit the more substantive cause for concern is that ‘when innovations can’t be manufactured in the U.S., the locus of innovation in that area frequently shifts to the countries that can manufacture them’. Even though the electrophoretic beads were the central innovation in the Kindle, E Ink could not control the low temperature polysilicon and the fabrication of the display. It thus could not perform the system integration required for it to capture the majority of the value add. That capability has shifted to Asia. And this is the key development.

VALUE-ADD AND INNOVATION CAPACITY

The issue highlighted by the Kindle example, is the fact that the shift of value-add in manufacturing to Asia has created a newfound innovation capacity there that those without this exploitation platform, will find increasingly difficult to match. Professor Shih remarks that by ‘not manufacturing the electrophoretic display, the U.S. will miss out on the future industries that spring from it — things like large flexible displays, future generations of electronic signage, and plastic electronics’. And these in all likelihood will spawn other innovations and new industries.

“The lesson: Sometimes when you let your capabilities get away, you give up not only one industry but all its progeny.”

Professor Shih notes how years ago the U.S. lost the vast majority of its infrastructure, or “commons,” in precision optics to Japan. Again it was not simply value add that was problematic: ‘The Japanese used those capabilities to grab the lead in producing lithography tools for semiconductor manufacturing, which, in turn, drove most American semiconductor manufacturers out of the DRAM business. The Japanese also employed those capabilities to expand into lithographic tools needed to manufacture flat panel displays’.This same story has played out in high-tech industry after high-tech industry.

This example reveals that innovation capacity is not something that can be turned on and off at will but develops over time across an ecosystem that fosters exploration, engagement and exploitation. This is a symbiotic relationship which encompasses a set of critical relationships from the education system to government industrial policies; from the regulatory environment to longer term investment commitments to R&D etc.

Above all else, the Kindle example is only one of the latest that demonstrate that innovation capacity is rooted in the nation-state. We now begin to see the consequences of the financialisation of Western economies and where the short-term, risk-averse instrumentalism underpinning Western business culture is leading:  the shift in manufacturing from West to East, what some define as globalisation, has given rise to a similar shift in the capacity to innovate. Innovation capacity remains firmly rooted in the nation-state and until such time that a sense of ambitions is revisited upon Western economies, this is a trend that will only intensify in the 21st Century.

This is what BIG POTATOES: The London Manifesto for Innovation is attempting to address.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation, , ,

DEATH BLOWS TO LIFE SCIENCES R&D SPEND?

The concerns we have at Big Potatoes about the threat of cuts in R&D spending seems to be well founded with the recent announcements by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer concerning their plans to cut  R&D and other expenses as part of an effort to lower costs.

  • GlaxoSmithKline cited by the Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog, reported that it plans to save an extra £500 million a year by 2012 by cutting from R&D as well as sales and administrative expenses, with 70% of the savings going to the bottom line and 30% being reinvested. 3-4000 jobs are to go.
  • Things are no better for Pfizer: although Pfizer spent $2.8 billion on R&D in the fourth quarter of last year, R&D spending is about to fall pretty sharply. According to estimates from the company, R&D spending will fall to between $8 billion and $8.5 billion by 2012 (Pfizer expects to spend between $9.1 and $9.6 billion on R&D this year, a bit less than some Wall Street analysts had expected, and well below the $11 billion in combined R&D spending from pre-merger Pfizer and Wyeth).
  • Meanwhile at AstraZeneca, an additional 8,000 jobs will go over the next few years — about 12% of the company’s workforce. That’s on top of thousands of cuts previously announced by the company. And like the other companies cited above, these cuts will also impact their R&D department.

This is a very disturbing trend because in all these cases basic research capacity is being axed for areas that are now regarded as better guaranteeing returns on investment. In Life Sciences where successful innovation relies upon a huge amount of experimentation and failure, cutting basic research capacity smacks of an increasing instrumentalism which can only inhibit breakthrough innovation in the future. Short-termism, it seems, is now being institutionalised in an industry which is noted for its longer-term commitment and time-frames. Where next?

Filed under: R&D and Innovation, , , ,

R&D IN 2010: GOING EAST – ITS OFFICIAL

According to the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2010, the US while leading most areas of science and technology, has experienced a gradual erosion of its position. This is primarily because of the rapidly increasing capabilities among East Asian nations, such as China, and the fruition of the European Union’s efforts to boost its relative competitiveness in R&D, innovation and high-tech.

The data begins to tell a ‘worrisome’ story: Science and technology are no longer the province of developed nations

The report, which a top White House official called the ‘State of the Union for science, engineering, mathematics and technology,’ is required to be submitted to the president and Congress by Jan. 15 of every even numbered year, with the most previous report issued in 2008.

‘Not just about where we stand, it’s about where we are headed’

The report notes some important shifts that indicate that the US’s leading position is now facing serious challenges:

  • 2007 was the year China caught up to the U.S. in the number of researchers and doctoral degrees in natural sciences and engineering;
  • While the U.S. continued to be the largest R&D performing nation – representing one-third of total world investment – Asia has narrowed the gap, largely due to the sustained annual increases by China;
  • China is now the third-largest R&D performer in the world behind the U.S. and Japan and is moving ahead of Germany, France and the UK;
  • For several Asian economies, including South Korea, Taiwan, China and Singapore, increases in R&D investment have been accompanied by notable increases in the rate of growth in the number of researchers;
  • While the U.S. continues to lead the world in research output, China has become the second most prolific contributor to the world’s peer-reviewed science and engineering research articles, which is up from 14th place just 10 years earlier;
  • The U.S. economy had the highest concentration of knowledge and technology intensive (KTI) industries, such as biotech, among major economies; While those industries accounted for 38 percent of the U.S. gross national product (GDP) in 2007, China’s KTI industries created 23 percent of GDP – up from 21 percent in 1992;
  • Productivity growth has been higher in China and other Asian nations than in the developed economies;
  • The U.S., the EU and Japan – with similar shares of high-value patents – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the total world’s patents – Asia’s patent share increased from 1 percent in 1997 to 6 percent in 2006, with South Korea accounting for almost all of that growth;
  • The U.S. share of patent applications in 2008 declined to 51 percent, with gains for second- and third-ranked Japan and the EU;
  • The U.S. has a comparatively higher-than-average share of patents in aerospace and the four health areas of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical equipment and medical electronics, with Asia relatively weaker in those technologies. However, Asia’s patent share has risen over the past decade with pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

SHIFTS IN INVESTMENT?

The report notes that overall spending on R&D in the U.S. was $398 billion in 2008 – up from $373 billion in 2007, or a growth rate of 6.7 percent. Importantly, the business sector accounting for 73 per cent of R&D performance and funding. The academic sector was the second-largest performer of U.S. R&D, with an estimated $51 billion in 2008, or just under 13 percent of the U.S. total.

But the federal government, the second-largest funder of U.S. R&D, provided an estimated $104 billion, or 26 percent, of the U.S. total in 2008. With the financial crisis this will definitely change.

The report confirms what has been argued in this blog for some time: namely, that science and technology activities are shifting toward Asian economies. What we are seeing is a relative decline in the US. But unlike other areas, R&D declines cannot be simply reversed. It is difficult to see how a decline in R&D capacity can be arrested other than a radical revamp which so far, is noticeable by its absence in the US and Europe.

Filed under: R&D and Innovation, Science and Innovation,

NEXUS, SHMEXUS! YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

I was hoping to start posting in the New Year with something positive in the hope that the innovation landscape of 2010 would improve. But alas, experience has triumphed once again  over hope.

Things started looking up with the opening of the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building which opened with a dramatic fireworks ceremony in the Gulf emirate of Dubai yesterday. At last, I thought, a project which re-establishes ambition in architecture and contains some construction innovations which will impact construction in the years ahead.

Then there was the astonishing announcement as reported on the BBC that Nasa’s Kepler Space Telescope had detected its first five exoplanets, or planets beyond our Solar System. Aha, I thought, perhaps mankind’s ambition to explore and experiment beyond the known world will take a turn outwards…

Then there was the hullabaloo around Google’s announcement of its new handset, Nexus One . And as they say, things fell apart. Just a cursory examination of Nexus One coming from what has been one of the most innovative and dynamic companies in the world reveals that we’re still in the innovation doldrums.

An ‘i-Phone’ with half the battery life

Nexus One is simply a poor clone of the i-Phone with some incremental improvements and one notable shortcoming – battery life. The Nexus One comes equipped with a five-megapixel camera and a flash for taking shots in dark environments. (The 3G S i-Phone only has a three-megapixel camera and no flash). So the Nexus has a light sensor designed to detect how bright an environment is enabling the device to adjust its screen brightness accordingly, to save battery life, which is a very necessary capability given the remarkable fact that the Nexus One has half the battery life capacity of the i-Phone – which has always been the i-Phone’s achilles heel.

Of course one can discuss Android and the open ecosystem Google are building which will certainly triumph Apple’s closed system in the long-term. And there are many things to speculate about in terms of future business models.

But at the most basic level there is a fundamental question: Why does a company like Google not invest in research to help solve the achilles heel of all mobile communications: namely, short battery life?

What Goolge have signalled with Nexus One is that they are followers rather than leaders in the mobile communication space. More importantly, they are not solving key user problems but are thinking about their business models and focusing on their competitors instead.

The i-Phone at least transformed the mobile communication user interface by introducing an effective touchscreen and a navigation system that is instinctive and simple to use. Nexus One has not advanced this nor any other dimension of the user experience. While the device can be bought unlocked, the telephony experience at the heart of the device still remains tied to the existing mobile operator’s capabilities – capabilities that have not altered the communications experience in any significant way for the past Century.

From what I can tell from the launch as described by the Washington Post , the only really innovative thing was the Google demonstrators who appear to have been wearing white lab coats (see the photo gallery here). Cute indeed, but worrying. The biggest concern is that Nexus One represents Google’s descent into mediocrity, dressed up in white lab coats, but mediocre nevertheless.

The innovation prospects for 2010 are looking slim I’m afraid.

Filed under: Innovation, R&D and Innovation, ,

INNOVATION & COLLABORATION: PROCESS TRANSFORMATION

A new study released today by the Business Performance Management (BPM) Forum and the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) Council reported by CNN, titled Greater Innovation Through Closer Collaboration, finds that 21st Century business models have become increasingly dependent on partner networks to shape customer experiences, drive innovation processes and deliver products and services to global markets. But information systems and cross-company business processes, however, are strained to keep pace.

The report sponsored by Sterling Commerce and AT&T, is based on a survey of over 400 executives and managers across a wide range of industries, as well as over two dozen qualitative interviews with leading executives from global businesses.

While the report highlights the growing significance of cross-company collaboration it also points to the internal difficulties facing companies to effectively harvest their social capital, increase innovation and collaboration and expose this to partners and customers alike.

Thus the report details the following awareness of the importance of the external relationships necessary to their businesses:

  • 73 percent of respondents are investing in programs and systems to optimize the way they collaborate with partners;
  • 37 percent of respondents say their partner networks are contributing significant innovation, insight and value to their business, further emphasizing the return from program investment:
  • Executives are also responding to the pressure to transform customer experience and satisfaction as nearly 4 in 10 respondents report that their customers are demanding greater visibility into both their supply and distribution chains.

CROSS-COMPANY COLLABORATION STILL LOW

But the report highlights how information systems and cross-company business processes are not keeping pace with increased business interdependence to enable companies to achieve round-the-clock collaboration, shared innovation, improved productivity and cooperative customer handling:

  • Only 6 percent of respondents say they currently have end-to-end data and process integration across their partner networks, although 51 percent report at least some level of integration with select partners;
  • Some 64 percent of respondents say they have either no ability or an unsatisfactory ability to extend and leverage their internal systems to selling and service partners;
  • Some 75 percent say they have no ability or an unsatisfactory ability to extend and leverage their internal systems to suppliers and outsourced service providers;
  • Only 26 percent of respondents say they are effective in sharing customer data and insights with partners to enable innovation.

INNOVATING BEYOND COST SAVING

The study reveals that outsourcing, supplier and demand chain partnerships are contributing far more to their businesses than just cost savings and operational capacity. The challenge is how to increase productivity across their value chains. As the report states:

Many companies see themselves at the hub of their own business network, but also say they are participating in the business networks of other companies. On the one hand, they are organizing, managing and collaborating with partners and vendors to coordinate their own value chain to customers. On the other, they are interacting in other networks that have their own set of customers. This intricate web of interdependencies is elevating the need for improved and agile cross-company integration and coordination, and for the creation of what we refer to as “Business Collaboration Networks.”

To create Business Collaboration Networks means serious investment in both internal and external systems to increase the productivity and effectiveness of key relationships, from improving supplier vendor management, global procurement and sourcing; customer handling and support; sales and customer acquisition; transportation and warehousing; order management and fulfillment; and product life-cycle management.

But on the key question of innovation, the report touts the familiar mantra of co-innovation.

While the attempt by 23 per cent of participants point to a move within their companies toward co-innovation as a major driver to transform their ability to collaborate more seamlessly with partners, the authors of the report believe this move will become an even more powerful driver in the years ahead. Nearly 40 percent of study participants believe their partner networks are already contributing significantly to innovation, insight and customer value.

But the move toward a more open and collaborative network model that embrace the ideas and innovative capacity of both customers and partners, if it is to be more than a gimmick, means substantial improvements in key business processes – internally and externally. This is the area where the real potential of Enterprise 2.0 really lies – in the internal transformation of processes and the flows of information between employees – to increase the collaborative capital underpinning day-to-day business. Otherwise Business Collaboration Networks will simply become another management mantra which will yet again be seen everywhere apart from in the productivity statistics.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation,

THE CORPORATE SHIFT FROM R to D AND SHORTERMISM

A new Booz & Company’s annual study of the world’s biggest corporate R&D spenders, reported on Strategy-business.com, finds that most companies have stuck with their innovation programs despite the recession. While many are boosting spending to compete more effectively in the upturn, the report confirms the shift from Research to Development (as noted on this blog in numerous posts), increased risk-aversion and  short-term pragmatism.

The Booz & Company’s report contains a number of important statistics about R&D spending and the trends underlying these. It found that the world’s biggest innovation spenders increased their R&D spending by 5.7 percent in 2008, a slower rate of growth than the prior year’s 10 percent increase, but in line with the group’s 6.5 percent increase in worldwide sales. On a quantitative level this increase in spending looks impressive given that operating income for the group fell 8.6 percent in 2008, and net income plummeted 34 percent.

More than two-thirds of the companies included in this year’s Global Inno­vation 1000 maintained or increased R&D spending in 2008 despite a third of the companies reporting a financial loss for the year. However, the recession has certainly had an impact.

Recessionary Effects

The Global Innovation 1000 have certainly not been immune to the recession. Overall, they spent $532 billion on R&D in 2008, a healthy 5.7 percent increase over 2007, but well below the 10 percent increase from 2006 to 2007. Total sales were up 6.5 percent, to $15 trillion — but again, it was a significantly smaller increase than the 10 percent gain this same group registered between 2006 and 2007. Thus the group’s R&D intensity — innovation spending as a percentage of sales — remained the same at 3.6 percent.

Not all companies maintained or boosted R&D spending. Caution appears to be high: more than a quarter of the Global In­novation 1000 cut their innovation budgets in 2008 while the top 20 innovation spenders increased re­search and development by only 3.2 percent, compared with 10.7 percent for these companies in the previous year. Further­more, the early evidence indicates that as companies entered 2009, spending on innovation slowed further. This has been fueled by steeper declines in sales and income: among the 522 companies reporting results for the first quarter of 2009, R&D spending decreased by 7.4 percent — which is still less than half the rate of their 18.5 percent decline in sales.

Worrying trends:

Despite the quantitative figures reported, the qualitative trends underlying these trends gives grounds for concern. The report draws three trends out which confirm the most worrying longer-term trends. These are and I quote:

  • As a rule, companies are performing less pure and applied research. Instead, they are concentrating their R&D budgets on product development and engineering. This has been a trend for several years — indeed, 44 percent of survey respondents said they spend less than 20 percent of their R&D budget on basic research and advanced development — but it became even more pronounced during the recession. Managers hope to bring new products to market to take advantage of the upcoming recovery. Nearly 40 percent of respondents said their companies are shifting re­sources from basic research in order to prioritize new product launches.
  • The downturn has encouraged many companies — 40 percent, in our survey — to speed up their efforts to make the innovation process more efficient.
  • In response to the downturn, companies have become more risk averse; nearly half of survey respondents say that their companies are now more conservative than before. Companies are changing the criteria they use when giving new products the green light, tightening their relationships with customers and consumers, and watching their competitors, and the marketplace, more carefully.

The report highlights that every top executive interviewed said their companies are working hard to spend smarter — to get more bang for their R&D buck. What this means is an increased focus on improving the returns on innovation investments, in both the short-term and the long:

  • More than 40 percent of survey respondents said their companies were focusing on process improvements to change R&D spend during the downturn, and a similar number reported that they were getting better at killing bad projects;
  • More than a third of companies surveyed, for instance, said they were terminating more exploratory projects that lacked specific time lines; and,
  • More than 40 percent said their companies were focusing more on newer products that have the potential to grow faster.

While searching for efficiencies is to be expected, like it or not, there is a relentless logic at play here which despite the best intentions can only negatively impact on innovation in the future. Short-termism and pragmatism, trends that were in full evidence before the global recession, are now being entrenched into recession-based management practices. This is best expressed by Alan Grant, senior vice president for R&D in developing markets at Kraft Foods Inc. when he argues as follows:

For the past two or three years, we have been looking at our R&D portfolio, focusing on fewer, bigger ideas as opposed to lots of incremental little things. What the recession has done is change the filters through which we view the portfolio. Which of these products might we bring to the front and which might we choose to back pedal on, given the challenging economic times?

While short-term financial speculation got us into this mess in the first place, this report reveals just how far a short-term, risk averse and pragmatic approach is now being entrenched in the innovation practices of the world’s top global companies. At one level this is inevitable. Recessions focus the mind. But this report highlights how the recession is strengthening a risk-averse, short-term pragmatic business culture which, while recognising the importance of innovation, seems to be powerless to take the longer-term measures to guarantee it into the future.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation, R&D and Innovation, Risk and Innovation

THE RISE OF ASIA’S CLEANTECH ‘SILICON VALLEYS’?

According to an article on Cleantechbrief.com Asian countries are poised to outspend the United States on clean energy infrastructure and technology by a factor of three-to-one through 2013.

A new report from the Breakthrough Institute and Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant states that the governments of China, Japan and South Korea will invest $519 billion in clean technology between 2009 and 2013, compared to $172 billion by the U.S. government. Climate and energy legislation, passed in the United States in June, would contribute $28.7 billion of the $172 billion five-year total. China alone will spend $440 billion to $660 billion over the next 10 years on cleantech.

The report which highlights the investment gap argues that “the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys.” It states that apparently 85% of U.S. President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus cleantech grants went to foreign firms suggesting the US is now lagging significantly.

Whatever your opinion on cleantech the report is important because it highlights an investment trend in longer-term research in Asia. Asian governments are taking a much more direct and coordinated approach while the US is characterised by a more “sporadic regulatory approach”.

Why is this significant? Because Asian countries by pursuing a more systematic approach are creating innovation clusters which combine universities, manufacturers, R&D labs, suppliers and other firms much like ‘the Pentagon helped create Silicon Valley in the fifties and sixties’. Ironically, these clusters will be attractive to US companies who are already making large investments in countries like China.

Private sector cleantech – China at the forefront

The success of Asia government strategy can already be seen in terms of the growth of private sector cleantech funding. Between 2000 and 2008 the US attracted $52 billion in private capital for renewable energy technologies; but China alone attracted $41 billion. However, China secured more private investment in this area than the US for the first time in 2008.

The report’s message is a big warning:

Small, indirect and uncoordinated incentives are not sufficient to outcompete Asia’s cleantech tigers…To regain economic leadership in the global clean energy industry, U.S. energy policy must include large, direct and coordinated investments in clean technology R&D, manufacturing, deployment and infrastructure.

The real question is whether there remains any belief or stomach for creating a new cleantech Silicon Valley in the US today. The short-term and increasingly risk-averse business and government culture of the past decades suggests this is not going to happen – unless fear of the East can be galvanised in a caricatured reenactment of the Cold War.

This report highlights how the shift away from longer-term thinking and the goals of pure research in the West is now being reflected in real investment and opportunity gaps. And this is just the beginning.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation, R&D and Innovation, ,

LEVERAGING THE POWER OF NETWORKS FOR SMALL ENTERPRISES

In last week’s Sunday Times Business Supplement, there was an interesting article titled ‘Small firms unite in co-operatives to save costs’ which touches upon a theme I began to develop in a previous blog post Reinventing the co-op for the Twenty-First Century.

The article mentions that there are now almost 1,000 co-operative consortia in the UK in all sectors – from manufacturing to website design and from farmers to consultants. The idea is simple: join forces to gain more clout, and use this to help the bottom line. One example suffices to show the potential: in North York Moors National Park, seven hill farmers have joined together to form a co-op, naturally called, Seven Hill Farmers (and without the help of branding consultants!). The co-op has been used to negotiate better terms for selling their traditionally reared lamb to Asda. Last month they began selling 300 lambs a week to Asda.

This is a simple but effective example of how collective power can be leveraged to benefit from scale. But it is only embryonic.

There is a more ambitious point to make about this phenomenon: so there are 1,000 co-operative consortia in the UK across all sectors, perhaps leveraging their collective strength within their niche markets to the same or lesser degree as the Seven Hill Farmers. This might result in reducing costs on office space, like Open Space in Manchester, for example but this is only leveraging part of their potential. Without knowing what areas the 1,000 co-operative consortia cover in the UK, collectively they must all have similar requirements: they will spend money on office supplies and space, communications, transport and delivery costs etc etc.

The real potential for the disparate 1,000 co-ops is to become one virtual co-operative which will gain the leverage of a large corporation and thus not only enable more negotiating power, but change the rules of the game altogether.

THE VIRTUAL ‘UBER-CO-OPERATIVE’ – AN ENTERPRISE SERVICE PLATFORM

What is really needed is the development and management of a corporate network environment to provide the software and IT solutions and services environment required by an Enterprise. This would be achieved by constructing an extensible platform of service components and developing services that leverage the power of the collective. To be even more effective, the platform would be opened up for third parties to use as a component base for building services for the virtual co-op. This platform would function like an  Enterprise Services Platform (ESP) where third parties could provide specific applications to ensure a greater range of services and applications to be made available to the virtual co-op and which leverage the collective power of the co-op.

The platform stack would have to be extensible, while the ability to add new components and associated API sets over time with the minimum of effort, should be built into its architecture. The goal would be to build a platform that leverage the power of the collective. The virtual co-op ESP would thus act as an IT and services  platform for its members as well as third party service providers. Leveraging the power of the collective will provide cost-effective services and revenue opportunities for all concerned (saving money or generating paid for services).

Two examples suffice to illustrate how the ESP could function to realise the network effect of the virtual co-op.

LOGISTICS

This is an area of immense challenge for both transport suppliers and SMEs. Transport suppliers want to ensure that their trucks are as full as possible in order to maximise profits. Unfortunately waiting for delivery contracts often means that the vehicles are far from optimised for certain distance runs.

Many SMEs have sporadic requirements for courier deliveries, maybe because they rarely need them, or maybe because the niche nature of products they supply means there is little or no pattern in the delivery addresses.

So how would the ESP work in this instance?

A third party could, for example, work with a number of Logistics providers to build a service which allows them to aggregate the shipping requirements of co-op members. They can then contract the courier with the most available space for any given geographic transport run. The logistics firms are able to offer a better rate to the third party as they contract in bulk; the third party passes on some of this saving to the co-op members while taking a cut as an arrangement fee. The third party builds a system which interfaces with the parcel tracking systems of the various carriers in order to present a single interface for co-op members to track their current shipments, even though they may actually be travelling to different geographic locations with different couriers.

PURCHASE GROUPS

Group purchasing is a great way for small buyers to gain the bulk buying discounts normally open only to larger buyers. Maintaining buying groups can however be time consuming.

How does the ESP do this?

A third party develops an ESP-based system which allows co-op members to maintain a list of items they intend to purchase and a maximum price they are prepared to pay. This purchase list is aggregated and published, with the buyers remaining anonymous to encourage other members to register their interest in any of the items. The third party system utilises an agent platform to negotiate with potential suppliers reporting back a price. When a price mutually acceptable to the co-op members is achieved, the items are ordered and the co-op members billed automatically. Linked to the logistics platform, the optimal delivery date and carriage can be secured as well.

Taking this one step further it is conceivable that such a platform could be opened to non-co-op members thus increasing its network effect even more.

It is clear that the idea of co-operatives joining forces to gain more clout represents only the embryonic power of the network effect. To realise its full potential will need the co-operatives to follow through the logic of what their actions potentially mean. What is needed is more collective pooling – the coming together of these co-operatives to create a vision that can realise their common interests. Today, this potential could be combined with software and network technologies that can leverage the network effect. This is a great opportunity to change the rules of the game.

If anyone is interested in organising an event to try to bring the co-operative consortia together to realise this vision,  please get in touch.

Filed under: Economics of Innovation, ,

About futures-diagnosis

Categories

Archive

Follow me on Twitter

My del.icio.us tags

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 755 other followers