(The core text of this post was published as an article on p15 of the November 2019 issue of Prospect Magazine).
Economies that support innovation are likely to grow: those that do not risk stagnation. But ‘innovation’ is a term that is used, and frequently misused, to represent many different things. At its core, innovation is the successful application of new ideas. Invention is the process of generating those new ideas.
It is often stated that ‘Britain is good at invention but poor at innovation’ but this is a bit of a cliché (we are actually pretty effective at both). But there is a delicate balance to be managed between the two activities, particularly when it comes to the allocation of public
funding, and the need to show the impact of that funding within short political timescales. Given current turbulence, the importance of strengthening our innovation system has never been greater.
The scope of innovation is vast: it encompasses new products and services, new business models and production processes, and new organisational forms and business ecosystems. It can be a small steps forward (incremental innovation) or giant leaps (radical innovation). It can support existing ways of doing things (sustaining innovation) or it can be about ‘breaking the mould’ (disruptive innovation). It can be, but is not always, linked to new technologies derived from scientific research.
The process by which scientific research leads to economically or socially valuable innovations is extremely complicated. There is a whole body of research that attempts to model the process but, as mathematician George Box said: “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Simple, so-called ‘linear models’ that imply a series of uni-directional, manageable steps between research and application have been replaced by models that more accurately reflect the complicated, systemic and dynamic nature of innovation: it has numerous interconnected actors and activities, frequent iterations between them, and often long timescales and tortuous routes to success. Cultural and behavioural challenges permeate every aspect of these systems.
The UK ‘innovation system’ has undergone major developments over the past two decades, and the role of universities and their interaction with the business community has been the focus of many of these. Drawing upon lessons from elsewhere (particularly the US), previous UK governments put in place funding mechanisms to empower universities to develop their ‘third missions’ (commercialisation, to complement teaching and research). This has led to the transformation of cultures across research communities, and encouraged the development of regional innovation ecosystems that bring together researchers, investors, start-ups and large companies.
However, multiple interlinked economic and political issues – coupled with the fast changing and systemic nature of many technologies emerging from the science base – could be exposing some potential weaknesses.
Three examples of such potential weaknesses are as follows. The first of these is the need to continue to manage an appropriate balance between spending on the nearer-market innovation activities and investing in the longer term research activities that could underpin future inventions and innovations. Near-market activities could be seen as more attractive for public sector attention as they offer clearer short-term, reportable impact. But without sustained investment in longer-term ‘blue skies’ research, the pipeline for future innovations will dry up. On the reverse side, near-market activities could be viewed as ‘the responsibility of business’ without the need for public funding. The balance is, in reality, much more complex and nuanced. The formation of UK Research and Innovation, whose funding and support activities spans fundamental research to application through innovation, is a key mechanism for ensuring this balance is maintained.
The second potential weakness is that successful innovation is rarely reliant on a single technology or idea. A broad range supporting resources and capabilities are also needed to get the invention to market. These include the development of appropriate supply chains to provide all the resources needed to produce and deploy the new products or services, development of relevant standards for performance, safety and quality for different applications, and many more. Critically, there is a need to ensure that there are people with the relevant skills available at each stage of the process of invention to innovation (ranging from funding for PhDs at the early stages of scientific development, to support for the specialised technicians who can enable the adoption of these technologies in industry, through to the need for more generic skills across the workforce as the technologies diffuse and mature). This requires effective cross-government collaborations (such as the need for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work closely with the Department for Education) supported by cross-sector industry engagement.
Thirdly, building upon the point above, there is the challenge of ensuring that support is delivered in the appropriate way throughout the innovation system and over the whole lifecycle of innovations. There needs to be support for coordinating the often long and tortuous journeys that typify the ways in which outputs of science are translated into new products and services. A UK example is Humira, one of the best-selling medicines ever, which had a +20 year, multi-stranded journey - involving multiple organisations and diverse sources of investment to achieve success - which went way beyond the normal political timescales.
An effective innovation system can provide the bedrock for sustainable economic growth. The UK has an extremely strong track record for both invention and innovation but in these turbulent times there is a risk that these strengths could be weakened. The three issues highlighted above are examples of where coordination across government is vital. Without such coordination, there is a risk that the UK’s long-standing strengths as an inventive and innovative nation will be lost.
Economies that support innovation are likely to grow: those that do not risk stagnation. But ‘innovation’ is a term that is used, and frequently misused, to represent many different things. At its core, innovation is the successful application of new ideas. Invention is the process of generating those new ideas.
 |
| Sir Patrick Vallance (Government Chief Scientific Adviser) speaking at an IET event on Influencing the future of innovation |
funding, and the need to show the impact of that funding within short political timescales. Given current turbulence, the importance of strengthening our innovation system has never been greater.
The scope of innovation is vast: it encompasses new products and services, new business models and production processes, and new organisational forms and business ecosystems. It can be a small steps forward (incremental innovation) or giant leaps (radical innovation). It can support existing ways of doing things (sustaining innovation) or it can be about ‘breaking the mould’ (disruptive innovation). It can be, but is not always, linked to new technologies derived from scientific research.
The process by which scientific research leads to economically or socially valuable innovations is extremely complicated. There is a whole body of research that attempts to model the process but, as mathematician George Box said: “All models are wrong; some models are useful.” Simple, so-called ‘linear models’ that imply a series of uni-directional, manageable steps between research and application have been replaced by models that more accurately reflect the complicated, systemic and dynamic nature of innovation: it has numerous interconnected actors and activities, frequent iterations between them, and often long timescales and tortuous routes to success. Cultural and behavioural challenges permeate every aspect of these systems.
 |
| Roadmapping workshop to identify barriers and opportunities for emerging technologies at the HVMC/IfMUK Manufacturing Forum 2018 |
However, multiple interlinked economic and political issues – coupled with the fast changing and systemic nature of many technologies emerging from the science base – could be exposing some potential weaknesses.
Three examples of such potential weaknesses are as follows. The first of these is the need to continue to manage an appropriate balance between spending on the nearer-market innovation activities and investing in the longer term research activities that could underpin future inventions and innovations. Near-market activities could be seen as more attractive for public sector attention as they offer clearer short-term, reportable impact. But without sustained investment in longer-term ‘blue skies’ research, the pipeline for future innovations will dry up. On the reverse side, near-market activities could be viewed as ‘the responsibility of business’ without the need for public funding. The balance is, in reality, much more complex and nuanced. The formation of UK Research and Innovation, whose funding and support activities spans fundamental research to application through innovation, is a key mechanism for ensuring this balance is maintained.
The second potential weakness is that successful innovation is rarely reliant on a single technology or idea. A broad range supporting resources and capabilities are also needed to get the invention to market. These include the development of appropriate supply chains to provide all the resources needed to produce and deploy the new products or services, development of relevant standards for performance, safety and quality for different applications, and many more. Critically, there is a need to ensure that there are people with the relevant skills available at each stage of the process of invention to innovation (ranging from funding for PhDs at the early stages of scientific development, to support for the specialised technicians who can enable the adoption of these technologies in industry, through to the need for more generic skills across the workforce as the technologies diffuse and mature). This requires effective cross-government collaborations (such as the need for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work closely with the Department for Education) supported by cross-sector industry engagement.
Thirdly, building upon the point above, there is the challenge of ensuring that support is delivered in the appropriate way throughout the innovation system and over the whole lifecycle of innovations. There needs to be support for coordinating the often long and tortuous journeys that typify the ways in which outputs of science are translated into new products and services. A UK example is Humira, one of the best-selling medicines ever, which had a +20 year, multi-stranded journey - involving multiple organisations and diverse sources of investment to achieve success - which went way beyond the normal political timescales.
An effective innovation system can provide the bedrock for sustainable economic growth. The UK has an extremely strong track record for both invention and innovation but in these turbulent times there is a risk that these strengths could be weakened. The three issues highlighted above are examples of where coordination across government is vital. Without such coordination, there is a risk that the UK’s long-standing strengths as an inventive and innovative nation will be lost.
Comments
Post a Comment