Futures-Diagnosis

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

REGULATION & INNOVATION: WHEN THE STATE BECOMES A BARRIER

One of my co-authors of BIG POTATOES: the London Manifesto for Innovation, James Woudhuysen and I have just published an article on government and regulation on spiked-online, titled, ‘How the state is a roadblock to progress’ in which we argue that red tape-obsessed, visionless governments are holding back the kind of big and risky innovation society needs today.

This will be a constant theme we hope to expand upon when we launch BIG POTATOES this month. (Watch this space for an imminent announcement!). We concluded the article as follows:

“Innovation however, means making a persistent stab into the unknown. And the unknown cannot be regulated. We cannot routinise what we don’t yet know. Attempts to render technological change more predictable and ‘responsible’ can only mean closing down experiment and exploration.

“Innovation is a risky business. Technological innovation creates new problems, and can even lead to deaths. On the whole, however, mankind solves those new problems. However, the contemporary impeding of innovation through regulation reflects not just the momentary lapse of a government functionary, but a dyed-in-the-wool cultural malaise, a deep antipathy to taking chances, and a fundamental nervousness about spending money on risky enterprises.

“The over-regulation of innovation has acquired its own dynamic. What is now needed isn’t regulatory reform, but a sizeable – if discriminating – bonfire of controls that is more than merely rhetorical. To move Britain and the world forward, the deregulation of innovation is now an urgent imperative.

Filed under: Risk and 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

WATER ON THE MOON – A TONIC FOR INDIAN ASPIRATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF INNOVATION

Luna3 The discovery of significant quantities of water on the surface of the Moon by India’s first unmanned lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 is certainly something to celebrate. This is remarkable for two reasons: first because it has rekindled the dream of establishing a manned Moon base and further exploration deeper into space, particularly to Mars, and second, because it was the result not of a NASA lunar mission, but an Indian one.

Scientists have been baffled for four decades by the fact that rock samples brought back from the moon by the Apollo lunar missions showed evidence of the existence of water on the Moon. They were not sure if this was because there was water on the Moon or that this was the result of contamination from the Earth’s atmosphere. Now there is no question: water ice exists on the Moon – the ‘holy grail for lunar scientists for a very long time’, as  Jim Green, director of the Planetary Science Division at NASA Headquarters in Washington put it. In a statement put out by NASA, he went on to explain how this extraordinary discovery came about:

“This surprising finding has come about through the ingenuity, perseverance and international cooperation between NASA and the India Space Research Organization.”

This cooperation was significant: NASA’s Moon Mineralogy Mapper, or M3, instrument reported the observations. It was carried into space on Oct. 22, 2008, aboard the Indian Space Research Organization’s Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft. Data from the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, or VIMS, on NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, and the High-Resolution Infrared Imaging Spectrometer on NASA’s Epoxi spacecraft contributed to confirmation of the finding. The spacecraft imaging spectrometers made it possible to map lunar water more effectively than ever before.

So while NASA still played a significant role in this discovery, the fact that it was an Indian spacecraft is equally significant. India’s lunar programme is a result of the space race emerging between it and China. But whatever the domestic motivations underlying this competition, it highlights how significantly the space exploration field has shifted from West to East. While President Obama contemplates cutting back spending on the US space effort, India and China are surging ahead. We are thus in an era of transition: while a lot of the specialised technological innovation remains the preserve of NASA (given its past investment, innovation and experience), the drive towards pushing the boundaries of exploration are now increasingly coming from the East.

LOOK EAST

This reflects the global shift in economic power from West to East which the current recession has so sharply brought into focus. But more pertinent for the future of innovation, it reveals that this is now accompanied by a significant shift in Eastern aspirations, vision, and a willingness to take risks and push the boundaries of the known further. It suggests that in the same way that the US Space Programme had the unexpected outcome of solving thousands of problems for humanity in the 20th century (see NASA’s spin-off site here), the future of unexpected innovations and problem solving will increasingly come from the East this Century. But far from this representing a problem or being seen as a threat, this should be welcomed, and regarded, as Rob Killick succinctly argues, as an inspiration to us all.

Filed under: Risk and Innovation, Science and Innovation , , ,

TEDxLeeds: innovating out of the recession

Last week I spoke at the TEDxLeeds event on the recession and innovation, organised by Imran Ali and Herb Kim.

It was a well attended event with a very well-informed and engaged audience and judging by the twitter chatter, (#TEDxLeeds) the event seemed to go down extremely well. (Congrats to Imran and Herb and all involved! See the Ian Forrester’s blog post on cubicgarden.com for another view of the event). What was refreshing was the enthusiasm in the audience for challenging the existing culture of limits and low expectations. The points about the need for more risk-taking and greater experimentation, and opposition to the contemporary business culture of short-term pragmatism versus longer-term investment in research, appeared to resonate with a large section of the audience.This highlights that this is the time to develop bold new arguments for why we need

  • more long-term investment in research (as opposed to the short-term funding of development);
  • more experimentation and less emphasis upon predictable outcomes driven by narrow ROI considerations; and
  • more failure to build success.

Watch this space!

Below are some of the slides I used during my presentation. The key points should be obvious. But in case the Kennedy and Moon slides confuse, my point was simply that the US Space Program (despite being rooted in the politics of the Cold War) provided a bold vision and impetus to the generation of ground-breaking new research and innovation. The research created new industries while NASA provided impetus for the formation of thousands of new companies and product innovation. It is this kind of boldness that is so noticeably absent in our society today.

(This presentation has been selected amongst the ‘Top Presentations of the Day’ on the SlideShare homepage).

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

About futures-diagnosis

Categories

Archive

Follow me on Twitter

My del.icio.us tags