YouTube Channel old

Economists on Science - For 100 years predominant economic models limited thinking about innovation and how it is delivered - even though an alternative was in plain sight the whole time.

1. Scientific innovation is underpinned by scientific research which in almost every nation is funded as a public-good by governments. Funding is granted to Universities and Public Research Institutes in order to support research as a primary input of innovation.
2. If you were to ask most scientists, few would know that the historical origins for the support of scientific research arose from economic theory.
3. The story of economics over the 19th and 20th Centuries is a story about eminent academic economists and their different approaches - names such as David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Frederich von Hayek and Maynard Keynes come to mind, among many others.
4. Economists at this time subscribed to what is known as Neo-classical Economic Theory. Prescriptive models were used to study the interaction of factors affecting economic productivity and growth. These models typically involved a theoretical closed system that sought an idealised equilibrium between supply and demand.
5. For many years a nation’s economic growth was viewed as dependent on the interaction between available capital, labour and lastly technology with most models considering technology as an exogenous factor - acting outside of the models.
6. For a fixed amount of capital and labour and static technology, economic growth eventually slows and stops as production approaches a equilibrium. Once such a steady state is reached, exogenous factors such as a new transformative technology, is then required to stimulate growth.
7. The economist Robert Solow proposed a growth accounting method in 1956 that predicted long-term growth and convergence to this steady-state equilibrium, that took account of capital accumulation, labour (including population growth), and in particular, increases in productivity due to technological progress.
8. Solow used a regression model to demonstrate that as little as 1/8 of the growth in the US economy over a 40-yr period was accounted for by labour productivity and capital accumulation. The rest was accounted for by technological change the application of new knowledge.
9. Since scientific research delivers knowledge and technology, researchers have been considered essential for economic growth. Solow’s model brought technological change and the importance of knowledge production into the mainstream.
10. This orthodox neo-classical theory with its relatively simple assumptions about how economies behaved remained unchallenged for >30 yrs prior to the financial debacle of 2008. For some, serious questions were already being asked about the rather simplistic lack of reality embodied in economic theory - and some economists had begun rethinking the foundations of economic theory.
11. One of those areas of economic thinking - ‘evolutionary economics’ challenges the theoretical need for a steady-state equilibrium and has been inspired by the 1940s work of Joseph Schumpeter
12. Schumpeter viewed an economy as always being in a state of dynamic disequilibrium - forever changing and growing. He viewed the central problem of economics not one of equilibrium but one of a dynamic and continuous structural change - of restructuring.
13. For Schumpeter, technological change enabled a process of re-allocation of capital from old inefficient and obsolete production systems to be invested in new more efficient and productive processes - in an ever-changing state of development and growth- a process that Schumpeter called creative destruction. Joseph Schumpeter, understood that the architect of this creative destruction - was the entrepreneur.
14. So we see that one economic approach, of neo-classical economic theory that has dominated policy decisions for decades emphasises technological change through investment in research to deliver steady-state economics and another, Schumpterian economics argues the case for disequilibrium and creative destruction generated by entrepreneurs. Hence two fundamentally different approaches.
15. These different approaches have influenced how we view, measure, allocate inputs and provide training to deliver innovation and the subsequent conditions we create for it to thrive. These differences are significant and the predominant neo-classical economics has limited our ability to deliver innovation - A subject to which we will inevitably return at a later date.

Science - a noble and honourable pursuit? - Scientific research is a sophisticated methodology for generating knowledge - essentially no more than a sophisticated tool - place the tool in the hands of those who can craft something with it.

1. Most, although not all people see science as a noble and honourable pursuit.
2. Academic scientists are professional knowledge producers and are privileged in that they are a position to observe first hand, and record the wonders of our world, to make discoveries and to find ways to make use of those discoveries.
3. Science in this context is as much a cultural activity as art and poetry and music or theatre.
4. If we were to ask for a definition of science we might use the one produced by the UK Science Council in 2009 who state that science is “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”
5. The key aspect of this definition are “pursuit and application of knowledge” and “following a systematic methodology” all - in order to gain greater understanding, elucidation and proof or evidence.
6. For this reason I prefer to use the generic term of ‘science’ when talking about innovation rather than the current preference for use of the STEM acronym - science, technology, engineering and mathematics since there is a commonality of ‘pursuit and application of knowledge’ and ‘systematic methodology’.
7. On this basis each scientific discipline can be reduced to and described by a number of common key elements:

Key Elements underpinning all Scientific Disciplines

• Basic knowledge of the subject matter (e.g. materials, species, substances and formulae)
• Accepted theories, current hypotheses, key concepts and principles
• Effective and representative methods/techniques and research pathways
• Types of problems addressed and modes of enquiry used
• Standards and measures of proof and underlying assumptions
• Vocabulary, terminology, syntax and notation
• Essential relationships, interactions and trends

8. Understanding scientific disciplines in terms of these different elements is important for a couple of reasons:
9. Firstly - these different elements underpin the matter and process of scientific research used by scientists and represent the foundations of scientific learning.
10. Secondly - the commonality of elements is what helps generalist scientific experts relate to different disciplines and provides the foundation for interdisciplinary research.
11. It is my belief that Science is better taught as a process in this way to provide greater meaning for those individuals who may use scientific research as a tool to invent and to innovate as opposed to those scientists for whom research is a way of life.
12. Scientific researchers are often wedded to their calling, their knowledge production, their paradigms, the methods and approaches they use in their scientific discipline.
13. For a scientific innovator, - an entrepreneur - however science, the knowledge and the methodology of research, its application - it is all no more than an excellent tool to be used to invent and to innovate.
14. Such a statement in no way seeks to undermine or devalue science or research as a process, but to demonstrate how from the perspective of a user of knowledge, - the innovator, the means by which it is achieved is important but - not as important as what potentially can be done with it.
15. Scientific research is a means of generating knowledge. Scientific innovation is about the utilisation of knowledge at the point at which knowledge is turned into an invention and the subsequent transformation of this as an innovation that meets an economic, social and environmental need.
16. We need both vocational scientists and those scientists who view research merely as a tool for innovation.

Scientific innovation limited through language! - The definition of terms and use of words with their attendant value judgements have influenced perceptions of scientific innovation - changing language to reflect what we want to achieve!

1. Words have meanings and form the basis of our language. Words can have multiple meanings dependent on context. The grammatical and verbal structure of a person’s language influences and reflects the way each of us perceives our own world, our values, thoughts and judgements.
2. Hence, the definition of words and the attendant value judgements we make and perceptions implied in their use are critical in communication - not least with regard to technical languages where precision and clarity of thought and debate are dependent on a common, clear and precise understanding of meaning.
3. Simply - a lack of precision in defining and using terminology can confuse and mislead, while the lack of vocabulary to express new abstract scientific concepts can even inhibit their exploration, a particular issue where their adoption may challenge the status quo.
4. Research is largely described in terms of its inputs and as a process, but rarely in terms of its outputs, all the terms we use that describe the activity of pure, basic, fundamental, blue skies research for example, which seems wonderful, challenging, questioning, and noble - all for a greater good of knowledge production, but there are no such list of terms to describe the outputs and who they are for - just applied research.
5. This is an issue that I have addressed with my definitions of scholarly, practitioner, trade and custom research. When we limit perspectives, vocabulary equally is constrained, and the question that always has to be asked is what and whose purpose may this be serving.
6. We talk about translational research in terms of research that can take us from point A to point B but we do not talk about the converse, of derivational research that can take us from point B to point A. Partly this is because of the way research is viewed, structured and conducted as a linear process translating ‘basic’ research A through innovation to the market B, for example, and it is not in many researchers interests to consider B to A, it would operate counter to their established models. Hence, there is no commonly used term to describe the process of research from B to A - that of ‘derivational research’ may fill this gap.
7. The term ‘Experts’ - in general an expert is considered someone who is highly specialised and highly regarded for their knowledge within a very limited field. An expert - a specialist - is highly regarded by society - we make a value judgement - experts - specialists are good things to have.
8. But what about a generalist - the proverbial ‘jack of all trades’, In some contexts a ‘jack’ is considered a derogative term, and yet it is readily associated with being a generalist. We make value judgements about a generalist having less importance, significance and relevance than of being a specialist.
9. Experts who specialise in being generalists however, have a key role to play in innovation, not least because they are required for effective interdisciplinary research to integrate different languages and words to communicate effectively across disciplines. The steps to be taken to progress from multi-disciplinary to interdisciplinary research places extra-ordinary emphasis on the role of communication, a need for a common language, terminology that is consistent within typologies applicable across each discipline, readily accepted and understood by all parties involved.
10. Generalists who tend to be particularly adept at understanding the interactions and limitations of disciplines have key roles here and with interdisciplinary research breaking down boundaries of disciplines - a generalists language and typologies that link and bind collaborative efforts are essential.
11. Collectives of terms that describe a function also need to follow a structure to give value to their individual and collective meaning - we think in terms of hierarchies, taxonomies and typologies of terms. These typologies also influence how we think about an issue such as innovation.
12. Scientific innovation as a subject is rife with all of these issues and more - of restricted vocabulary, lack of precision, poorly organised typologies, a proliferation of terms that suit individual but not collective purpose, minimal cohesion, semantic expansion and loss of meaning through misuse.
13. For this reason the importance of terminology, biasses and misconceptions are addressed as a standalone chapter but in reality, the clarification and use of definitions are a feature of most chapters. Taking a multi-disciplinary approach to ‘innovation’ as a subject necessitates such re-evaluation across disciplines and finding a mechanism - a means to rationalise these is provided.
14. Most consideration of definitions within science are addressed by academic scientists and within scientific innovation also by scholars of other disciplines. Discipline-based academic scholarly endeavour provides one rather limited perspective from which to develop definitions of key terms relating to innovation, an entrepreneurs perspective is different altogether - one seeing science as a vocation and the other as a tool for use in innovation.
15. Innovation is a multidisciplinary endeavour and hence, requires definitions, terms and typologies that are not solely determined by academics within a single discipline but by generalists with a perspective across innovation as a whole that provide meaning across all relevant disciplines.

An injustice to science that limits progress! - The affliction of paradigms: Max Plank understood - scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.

1. Knowledge is the key currency of innovation, not just scientific knowledge in all its guises but knowledge and its use from a whole range of professions,
2. Knowledge is generally accepted to be a ‘justified true belief'. In the sense that the holder of knowledge should believe that the evidence relating to ‘the fact’ is true and be justified because the source, quality and totality of evidence available is sufficient to warrant such a belief. It is important to note that scientific evidence is progressive, time sensitive and that belief is based on subjective feelings, thoughts, values and ideals that influence interpretation of evidence - there is rarely an absolute.
3. Science is progressive in the sense that scientific research generates new knowledge. However, while research that contributes to innovation may or may not advance science, it should challenge belief in established knowledge and thereby ideally enable innovation.
4. Progress and advancement in science, can be considered in terms of additional knowledge generated, the quality of knowledge generated and the value of the outputs that it generates.
5. There is a commonly held belief that research excellence is required for progress in science, whereas it may be desirable but it is not a necessity.
6. Scientific excellence is a quality of research as an activity but it is not an essential requirement for scientific progress nor for innovation and the way it is measured will determine its relevance. Accumulating citations in scientific scholarly journals may be a comfort for researchers and useful in their career progression but it is certainly not the best measure for evaluating progress in innovation.
7. Progress in science has been addressed by those interested in the social and philosophical aspects of science.
8. Most notable in this regard was Thomas Kuhn in the 1960s. Who described progress in science through revolutions occurring through what he referred to as paradigm shifts.
9. In my book on the Nature of Scientific Innovation I use the definition of a paradigm by Turkan Orman (2016):
   "A paradigm is a specific theoretical orientation, based on a particular epistemology and research methodology, reflective of a particular scientific community at a particular time in history. It also frames and directs the nature of the type of research inquiries generated from that theoretical orientation, as well as provides the fundamental basis for evaluating the results of the generated research.”
10. This latter quality of “framing the research inquiry” and of “providing the fundamental basis for evaluating results” encompasses both the limiting and liberating aspects of paradigms - since there will always things that remain external to any particular frame. Hence, if the relevance of results are constrained by the paradigm frame then only limited interpretations that work within the frame become available. Thus - Belief in the paradigm and the paradigm alone limits interpretation and what is considered true and justified.
11. However, at the boundaries of the frame exist new possibilities for discovery and invention, but it requires those individuals who are prepared to question and challenge the orthodoxy of the paradigm to undertake research in those areas.
12. The famous Physicist Max Planck's principle was that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views. If what Max Planck says is correct - then what a waste, a waste of time, opportunity and of innovation - because scientific research is being restricted by those who conduct it from a limited perspective of paradigms.
13. There is a need to have means by which paradigms are formally acknowledged within scientific research and mechanisms by which those who in their defence hinder, delay and prevent scientific progress because of their ‘belief’ in a knowledge that can only ever be transient and can never wholly be the totality of evidence even at any given time.
14. Scientists can and do limit progress in science by commitment to paradigms and in doing so, do themselves a disservice and undermine the development of potential innovative solutions needed by humankind.
15. The means by which explicit mechanisms for defining and declaring paradigms and of minimising their negative impact within science can be introduced. And the way in which this may be possible is outlined and considered in more detail in my book.

Delivering knowledge of value to users - When science is in the news - is this sufficient justification for public expenditure on research or should more be done to deliver real value to those who pay?

1. Scientific Research generates a great deal of knowledge which has traditionally been made public through publication in journals, conference presentations and press releases to the media.
2. Publication in scientific journals and presentations at academic conferences delivers information that is then accessible and available to other scholars as well as industry researchers, whereas traditional press releases can reach a wider public through print media, radio and television.
3. Social media and a range of different influencers now increasingly provides additional means to disseminate knowledge generated from scientific research.
4. However, across both traditional and social media pathways the key question to always ask relates to the effectiveness of dissemination, not least because we live in a world literally drenched by a continuous torrent of information.
5. The print and broadcast media are always looking for good news stories of innovation and technology, often to end programmes on a positive note, and as such a prepared media release is seen as a potentially easy option in order to promote the outputs of research, individual experts or institutions.
6. After-all such releases can lead to coverage in local newspapers, radio or television and in the UK even a brief film or interview with for example with the BBC - which may be perceived as the pinnacle of achievement for media coverage in the UK at least, it must all surely have impact.
7. Sensational, headline grabbing news can have impact but potentially this will be short-lived. Sustained impact is much more difficult to achieve. The advertising industry know this all too well.
8. Globally around $120 billion is spent by business on advertising to get across their key messages to change consumer behaviour and influence decision-making in the purchase of products and services.
9. It is important to understand this because it places in context the impact of a one-off media event concerning new research and scientific developments or the availability of a new technology. While potentially reaching a very large audience and raising general awareness, which may seem like a positive result, many people will have no interest in the message or be of little relevance to them.
10. As a stand-alone such simplistic approaches will have only fleeting and limited impact and while they may be used to enhance the standing of an individual or institution in the eyes of the public this is not necessarily a good return on investment from publicly-funded research.
11. The idea of fulfilling a research obligation to public funders simply through dissemination of knowledge as a press release informing an unknown audience of unknown size, is surely inadequate. It all comes down to reach, significance and impact - does such knowledge and the way it is delivered change perspectives, attitudes, approaches, decision-making or their behaviours?
12. Considering dissemination of knowledge in innovation terms - in particular that knowledge generated from practitioner research, should be associated with a dissemination strategy that includes translations as products, services and processes.
13. A knowledge dissemination strategy should involve understanding of

• Target audiences, their character and size, and the reason they are being targeted
• The choice of pathway (print, broadcast and social media) and specific media outlets (such as specialist magazine articles or social media groups), should maximise the opportunity to reach the targeted audience
• The messaging needs to be appropriate and frequency of delivery optimised such that recall, behaviour and decision making is significantly impacted.
• Metrics need to be defined and data collected to determine scale of impact.

14. Secondly the scale and value of impact from dissemination of knowledge has to be considered in terms of development of products - manuals, guides, websites or as services - providing training, on-line chats, podcasts and YouTube videos.
15. And this is where the dissemination of knowledge can differ from the delivery of knowledge as an innovation which can be that same knowledge but translated and embedded within longer lasting, more tangible products and services - having greater more sustained impact.
16. Ultimately the aim has to be to ensure that the knowledge generated by scientific research reaches the people who can most gain value from it, presented in a way that is most relevant to their needs.

A scientific paper benefits who exactly? - Research published as scientific papers has value for scholars but what value does each paper have beyond this for innovation.

1. Research scientists are professional knowledge producers. They undertake a difficult, sophisticated and specialised form of knowledge production through various kinds of research within different scientific disciplines.
2. Knowledge advances in these disciplines through making available the research results to other scientists who scrutinise, assimilate and add to their personal knowledge bank for access and use in the development of their own ideas, hypotheses, experiments and the interpretation and evaluation of their results.
3. The primary means of disseminating research knowledge to those other scientists then is through the publication of papers within discipline-based academic journals.
4. The career progression of academic scientists at least- and in some cases industry researchers - are founded on publication output - both in terms of numbers of scientific papers and their perceived quality.
5. Their perceived value is based on the reputation of the journal in which the work is published and the number of citations that the paper subsequently receives from other scientists in their own publications.
6. The concept of research excellence is based upon this use of numbers and the quality aspects of research publications. The more papers that are highly cited, in more highly regarded scientific journals is considered to relate to a measure of research excellence. This is seen as important at both an individual and a national level, where scientific excellence is often measured on the basis of numbers of highly cited publications, especially with regard to research expenditure.
7. The bibliometrics associated with academic publications has therefore become a whole discipline of study in its own right. But what is really interesting is not the number of papers that are published irrespective of the journal involved - what is really interesting - is the number of citations per paper and whether or not the papers are actually read by scholars - at all.
8. Citations are taken as a measure of value placed by scientists on each others research - of scholarly impact. This is clearly important for individuals and for personal career development but the scary part is that the average number of citations per paper is remarkably low, as are the number of downloads and the readership per scientific paper. This issue and its importance is addressed in my book in detail - how to do we justify the generation of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, when there is evidence to suggest that the value of this, even in terms of reach to scholars - is very limited in deed.
9. So if there is evidence that a great deal of scientific endeavour published in papers is not downloaded, read or cited by other scholars, then how to assess value - are there other measures of value - for invention and innovation perhaps?
10. Scientific knowledge production can lead to the very practical output of an invention, which may have potential commercial value if it can be protected through being patented.
11. Patents can also cite scientific work related to an invention. Given patents are indicative of invention and thereby providing a basis for innovation having commercial and economic value, then linking the value of knowledge recorded as scientific publications in patents, can provide a measure of value of the scientific output of research.
12. When relating scientific R&D to patents it is clearly important to look at science-dependent patents. A country that is successfully translating its R&D expenditure into science-dependent patents - should have a high ratio of percentage science-related patents relative to percentage of overall publications.
13. Whereas - a country that is undertaking a great deal of research but not translating this into science-dependent patents would expect to have a low ratio.
14. A 2020 study across 30 nations by Ali Gazni of the Islamic World Science Citation Centre demonstrated that countries vary widely in this ratio with the US and Japan having the highest scores - the greater ability to translate science into patents.
15. This ratio then is perhaps a better measure of innovation potential relating to scientific output than studying numbers and quality of research as scientific publications alone.
16. If we need a measure of the value of scientific output for both an individual and a nation then the ratio of scientific papers published in journals relative to those published in patents - then this produces a better indicator of innovative potential.

Intellectual Property - placing real value on knowledge - Research is a sunk cost; maximising value from discovery can be achieved through monetising intellectual property where patents then generate benefits across the impact value chain.

1. If scientific knowledge can be used to create an invention which can be patented, - meaning that it is novel, non-obvious and having utility, then knowledge can be transformed into value which may be economic, social or environmental.
2. But how might this come about? How is value realised from a scientifically derived patented invention.
3. Essentially it comes down to two things - firstly monetary value from exploitation of a patent and secondly the generation of benefits which may accrue through use of the invention.
4. A patent can accumulate monetary value at a number of different points and for a range of different players.
5. Firstly the inventor - this is the person who owns or assigns a patent - they may receive payments as a salary increase or bonuses from an employer for having successfully patented an invention. If the patent is then licensed and assigned to a third party there may be upfront payments and royalties relating to future exploitation. Patent generate revenue!
6. Start-up companies who own patents tend to receive greater levels of investment than those that don’t, they also employ more people on average, generate greater sales and ultimately the company will be valued higher than those without patents or a smaller portfolio of patents.
7. Patents are indicative of value in a business, demonstrate inventiveness and innovation which is attractive to investors and shareholders. Also those companies with patent portfolio’s are more likely to export products and services, all of which bring economic benefits to a nation.
8. As a simple monetary measure of knowledge, translated into a patentable invention then there are numerous ways to demonstrate monetary value, for the inventor, the owners and shareholders of companies, and ultimately the national economy through corporate and employee taxes, export revenues.
9. The key takeaway point here though is by being able to apply a monetary value to a patent, it means the patent becomes a protected asset, and having such an asset - having ‘value’ makes it easier for investors to take risks in business that they would otherwise not be inclined to make. Hence, the patent provides a bridge between a great invention and the means for its exploitation. In this way published patents are invaluable to a nation, more valuable than knowledge sitting in a scientific publication. They generate new businesses, jobs, employment, livelihoods, income that enable payment of taxes and purchase of homes, consumer goods etc.
10. The benefits that arise to the enduser of a patented invention when ultimately made available for purchase or use are varied and many.
11. Benefits relating to improved health and quality of life arising from a new medical intervention, enhanced food quality derived from a novel agricultural input, improved safety of materials or structures through new diagnostics, more effective energy generation and storage, more efficient manufacturing and data process solutions through AI - all benefits that have direct and indirect impacts on people’s lives and livelihoods, on the success of business and hence the growth of nations.
12. Through providing a means to exploitation and the assurance needed for investment, patents (and of course other forms of IP) represent the most effective vehicle by which to enable innovation.
13. However, you look at it, the greatest value and utility from the generation of knowledge is returned when patents or other forms of IP are secured.
14. The question then comes down to whether in maximising the output from knowledge production is a nation doing enough to turn that knowledge into invention and subsequent innovation?
15. A subject to come back to on another day.

To achieve innovation - it has to be our main goal! - If innovation and entrepreneurship is not our sole purpose or our main goal how will it be prioritised and achieved, as some bolt-on, or some after-thought - of course not!

1. Every organisation needs to align itself and it’s employees with its purpose. Where an organisation claims that its purpose is to be innovative or supportive of scientific innovation then there might be some expectation that such purpose is reflected within their organisational goals and strategies.
2. In this case then the use of clearly defined goals and strategies relating to invention and innovation, should be integrated into day-to-day research operations, ideally with the ability to link institutional goals and strategies with those of employees, especially the researchers.
3. This is particularly important where researchers within a public research institute, for example are expected to deliver definable impact as part of their performance or where the purpose of the organisation is to provide training and practical experience in scientific innovation and entrepreneurship.
4. However, to achieve innovation and encourage entrepreneurship as part of an organisations purpose requires that those involved in management and the researchers themselves understand the nature and differences of goals and strategies - and unfortunately because such matters have traditionally been founded in, and borrowed from, military or business spheres, too few in science are aware of their relevance to research and innovation management.
5. I became interested in both military and business strategy many years ago and grasping the significance of what I learned and I started to weave such approaches into my writings on scientific research programme management.
6. Paraphrasing the work of Bengt Karlöf on business strategy in the late 1980s - a goal is founded in the combination of a vision with a given level of ambition. The level of ambition reflects the degree of desire and the motivation to perform.
7. Goals though are intimately linked to the actions necessary to achieve them within a particular and specified timeframe, often for a research programme, 3 -years. The means by which a goal is achieved is dependent on the strategy - the means, the activities, processes, approaches - required to deliver it. A strategy is the means by which a goal is obtained. There may be multiple strategies per goal.
8. Goals are also linked to their strategies in a hierarchical way, so that the goals at one level becomes the strategy of the level above it. Conversely, the strategy at one level becomes the goal of the level below it. It is this interconnectedness that causes confusion about the difference of goals and strategies, but this same characteristic means it is possible to build what I referred to back in 1995, as a ‘strategic tree’.
9. This hierarchical nature of goals and strategies means that in theory using a ‘strategic tree’ it is possible for a goal of government to be translated through strategy and goals at successive levels - from science policy, to government agencies, to departments within agencies to public research institutes, to departments and projects within departments all the way down to the goals and activities of individual scientists - all interlinked.
10. In reality of course this is not always easy to achieve and may not be practical, but as a principle it is relevant and achievable within any organisation, not least where a clearly defined purpose creates the starting point.
11. So if a government requires a nation to have significant innovative capacity, to be an innovative nation, then the organisations need to be able to demonstrate, not just through their purpose but through the everyday goals and strategies their commitment to this end.
12. It is often easy for an organisation to claim it is addressing and committing to being innovative without actually making any changes to the way the organisation acts or its employees behave in this respect. Goals and strategies at every level of an organisation that reflect the needs of creating an innovative organisation provides the foundation for ensuring integration within day-to-day operations.
13. Think in terms of training in innovation and entrepreneurship - this is often seen as a bolt-on activity, a series of workshops, online seminars that supposedly will do the job - of creating an innovative capability within an organisation.
14. However, to train, to develop knowhow and skills, to develop a culture of innovation in such a way that it is practised by individuals - to do this requires that the goals and strategies at the level of the organisation to be aligned and integrated with those for every individual.
15. Where a goal at an institutional level may be to deliver innovative solutions to address issues within a particular domain, the strategy to resolve such issues may involve undertaking research.
16. A scientist researcher should have a goal along the lines of: “To develop my personal capacity to be innovative and to undertake research in the field of X, in order to deliver greatest impact to meet customer and end-user needs. And for colleagues similarly in fields Y and Z.
    
    The goal for the scientist researcher then becomes the strategies for that researcher’s line manager for example:
    Strategy 1. “To provide formal and informal opportunities for skills development, on-the-job training and mentorship to encourage entrepreneurism"
    Strategy 2. “To create a positive culture and means within each role, to allow experimentation and failure, through two research projects - one to achieve formal project goals of X, Y and Z and the other to test off-the-wall ideas, as individuals or teams.”
    Strategy 3. ”To ensure delivery to project needs are met in the fields of X, Y and Z.”
    Strategy .4 “To understand customer and end-user needs and have these integrated into the efforts of my research team.”
    The Goal of that Research Manager then becomes:
    To recruit, encourage, support and grow the scientific entrepreneurial, and innovative talents of our researchers, to deliver on projects in the fields of X, Y and Z and ensure the outputs of the research meet market needs, expectations and specifications that will deliver most impact for our customers and end-users
17. The importance of goals and strategies at every level of an organisation is crucial to the integration and alignment of purpose and delivery of that purpose to the needs of customers and end-users.
18. Ensuring that innovation and entrepreneurship is built into that purpose requires that goals and strategies are appropriately aligned so that activities are not just bolt-on activities but integrated into day-to-day operations of all staff, who know they each share common goals and strategies.

Central to the existence of an innovation organisation are its values - A culture based on sound core values has impacts on staff recruitment, their performance, team dynamics, and the drive and coherence of approach taken towards innovation.

1. What is meant by core values:
2. Core values are deeply held principles and standards that provide a moral and cultural foundation for the operation of an organisation. Individuals each live by their own core values which relate to their personal attitudes, ethics, behaviour, and approach to life.In an organisation it is important that the values of the organisation and the individuals employed within it are aligned.
3. The core values of research organisations are often based around a commitment to delivering excellent science and attributes that contribute to that ideal, of objectivity, integrity, openness, of being collaborative and sharing - which are all fine but not necessarily all encompassing - Hence, when recruiting researchers an emphasis tends to be placed on the need for demonstrative excellence for the skills and aptitude for science.
4. Obviously when a research position opens up, then specific skill sets may be necessary to complete on a specific piece of research, but in recruitment the question has to be asked whether the skill-set matters most or the values of the person and their alignment with the organisation……
5. A good leader will embody a vision, establish goals and strategies and select the most appropriate core values, by way of influencing company culture, setting standards, and providing an exemplar for all who work within the organisation.
6. One of the great things about being an entrepreneur is that they are able to create a business from first principles and hence, have greater control over the culture, the goals they set and the strategies they adopt to implement them but most importantly the core values of the company. They have the opportunity to establish the company on the basis of their personal core values, the values that reflect their beliefs, that embody their approach to life and those attributes they consider most important.
7. The core values of Sir James Dyson for his Institute of Engineering Technology are “Never stand still; Never give up; Never stop innovating” and “Never be satisfied”. Brilliant!! - and it is easy to see how such core values obviously relate to the personal values of this world-renowned innovator.
8. One of my companies also emphasised tenacity, optimism, a can-do attitude, as well as risk-taking while managing the potential negative impacts of such risks. Responsibility - both personal and for the team were also crucial - team aspects of genuine caring’ thoughtfulness, and appreciation of others, their achievements and the ability to celebrate these were all expected. A strong team spirit without ego or fear of failure built upon respect for each other and customers.
9. Having such core values achieves two things: Firstly it provides a basis for selecting and recruitment of staff who will fit within the organisation and secondly it provides the measures necessary for assessing individual ongoing and annual performance in the workplace.
10. Recruiting the right team and staff is absolutely crucial to a company’s success, particularly in the early stages for start-ups, since you cannot have anyone who is not pulling their weight. While skill-sets may be important, understanding that it is possible to train someone who has the right attitude and values while it is not so easy to instill different attitudes, behaviours and beliefs in an appropriately skilled person. Most people do not readily wish to change or adapt their behaviours, views, beliefs, or approaches.
11. This principle applies across all staff and especially from a start-up entrepreneur’s perspective, with other founding directors and senior managers. There are many unsavoury business people in the world and working with such at a senior level can be disastrous on a range of fronts.
12. So taking care to select and recruit both managers and staff on the basis of core values decreases the risks of problems, although will never eliminate these.
13. However, where performance measures are also based on core values as a primary means of assessing achievement alongside more traditional activity oriented measures, provides a means to maintain cultural standards and to reprimand those who stray from the unifying values that all are meant to share.
14. Overall, then the leader needs to be able to recruit and build a team exuding an organisational culture based on sound core values that inspire, drive and create coherence of approach and effort to deliver on goals and strategies to meet the needs of their customers and end-users.

Creativity: the Main Ingredient of Invention - Any decline in creativity, in novelty or the ability to translate this from research discovery into patents could be disastrous at a national level. Yet - is creativity valued enough in education?

1. Problems, problems, problems: our ability as a species to solve problems has had major implications for our evolution - our reproduction, survival and natural selection. Such selection pressures have probably shaped applied forms of creativity that have led over millennia to distinct social or technological advances, while sexual selection pressures have possibly underlined the more “ornate and aesthetic” forms of creativity such as music or visual arts, implicitly signalling an individual’s fitness to a prospective mate.
2. A creative ability in humans is generally seen as a key and determining feature of human evolution. Creativity associated with emotional reactivity, self-control and self-awareness must have provided a selective advantage to behaviourally modern humans beyond its purely cognitive advantages.
3. Cognition and Creativity are different.
4. Cognition is the mental process or action of acquiring knowledge through experience, and of the senses, and of understanding through thought, including memory, knowing, judging, categorising and problem-solving - and each can contribute individually or collectively to creativity.
5. Creativity then includes - the initial awareness of a problem, being able to characterise it, a process of ideation - idea generation and the ability to envisage- imagine a solution - an artefact, leading to the development of novel artefact-specific elements and recursive experimentation. Engaging the cognitive functions of knowledge, experience and motivation can assist or hinder this developmental process.
6. Creativity can thereby benefit from cognitive function but cognitive function is not dependent on creativity - cognition can exist without creativity.
7. It might be fun to speculate why it is that education systems and learning are largely based on cognition, rather than creativity? Why is it we refer to knowledge production by scientists, the professional knowledge producers - researchers - the cognitive aspects that we value - all about knowledge but we do not talk about creative scientists, professional creators - the producers of creativity! Is this because of the perceived objectivity of scientific method should not be contaminated by the subjective processes of creativity? For example as they may be perceived to be in the arts - in all their forms.
8. Research organisations are in the knowledge production business. That is they are engaged in a cognitive process. Their whole purpose revolves around knowledge production through research rather than the purpose of being creative and using knowledge to be creative. So have our research organisations actually the wrong raison d’être?
9. One of the concerns I have is that we have taken the creativity out of education, out of our processes of training - especially in sciences. We separate out the arts and the sciences, we separate-out cognition and creativity - and science training is left without creative elements.
10. If education systems are such, that creativity is not encouraged at the expense of skills associated with knowledge acquisition, memory performance, the ability to get the right answers in tests and exams - then where how are the skills acquired for creativity, of imagination, the love of novelty and the ability to use this for the creation of artefacts - of invention.
11. And if these concerns are real and it happens on a large scale - then we might even see a global decline in creativity, in novelty and innovation.
12. How then would things look for the future of scientific invention and innovation on that basis - if creativity, and novelty are in decline. And in my book I review the evidence for this and I have to tell you that all the indications are highly disconcerting, to say the least.
13. In previous video’s I have referred to the importance of invention and patents because of the multitude of benefits that can arise from their publication - of economic, social, health and environmental benefits.
14. Any decline in creativity, in novelty or the ability to translate this from research discovery into patents - could be disastrous at a national level.
15. Creativity is a key component of invention and any scientist who becomes part of a spin-off start-up will undoubtedly draw on their abilities to be creative almost on a daily basis.
16. There is a clear need to value creativity in education - on an equal basis to cognition - that is if a nation wishes to maximise is inventiveness and innovative capacity!

Confused thinking about Innovation is rife! - Everyone and their dog make claims of innovation and define it according to their own needs - a better rationale is required and supplied by applying a little bit of common sense.

1. The terminology associated with innovation is confused and lacking coherence. This occurs, largely because so many scientific and business disciplines can lay claim to it as a subject of study, and politicians see it as a panacea for all ills - so liberally use and abuse the term.
2. So the meaning of innovation begins to become eroded and the underpinning basis for associated processes and systems of approach then increasingly become diluted, structureless and meaningless.
3. From time-to-time the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publish their international guidelines on definitions relating to innovation in their Frascati Manual. For many years their definitions relating to the types of innovation followed a logical course reflecting the evolution of innovation as a subject.
4. More recently however, at least for me, their rationale has started to reflect the lack of precision and clarity that exacerbates the erosion of meaning - so I decided to produce my own typology of terms having, in my view a more defendable foundation. I may or may not have succeeded of course!
5. In producing such an interdisciplinary typology for innovation I consider there to be a number of key categories - firstly paradigmatic approaches, embodiments, then, categories of change, the means of generation, scale of reach and relevance, impact in the market and the means of delivery. Definitions and terms used for the types of innovation cited in the scholarly literature can mostly be assigned to one of these categories.
6. I leave it to you to decide whether I have been successful in my attempts and have in fact created a more rational typology for innovation or just simply added to the existing confusion.
7. For me however, the role of the embodiments of innovation are of most general relevance when we talk about this subject - since these reflect the means by which innovation is actually delivered. And ultimately this is what matters for everyone involved in the process of delivering innovation to the market.
8. The embodiments of innovation are - Products, Services and - or Processes. Every tangible output of innovation can be described as either a product, a service or a process or in some cases a combination of one or two, or even all three embodiments.
9. A good example of this multiplicity of embodiments is the Automated Teller Machine, or ATM as we all know it.
10. The ATM acronym for was first unveiled in June 1967 by the UKs Barclays Bank. The ATM is an automated process, using a product the machine providing a Bank Teller Service, a service that involves a payment transaction process whereby a card identifier is used to enable access to money from the card-owners bank account. The machine delivers a service and the machine enables a transactional process. The service innovation is dependent both upon the machine - product innovation and the process innovation. The process could also not be delivered without the machine or the personalised card.
11. The type of embodiment of an innovation will determine the route to market that may be pursued - something of particular importance to those people, the innovators, the entrepreneurs who turn an invention into a marketable innovation.
12. An example might be the development from an invention of a product where the real money to be made from is not from the sale of the product itself, but rather from the servitisation of the product - the back-up technical support, and parts service - that actually generates revenue. The productisation of a service, turning a service function into a product - such as the ATM.
13. And it is this clarity of thinking that is required when we consider innovation, because it is not just some hypothetical or even mythical concept but rather an actual means of delivery of ideas, systems, structures, inventions to the market. In the delivery of this, to have any hope of success through the myriad of potential challenges that will be encountered en-route, working through and determining exactly what the embodiment of the innovation will be, is a crucial first step.
14. This is the level of thought and consideration that has been lost in the OECD definitions of innovation - the lack of clarity, consideration and understanding that those people on the ground delivering innovation - the innovators and entrepreneurs cannot afford to get wrong.
15. Hence, the need for the coherent typology of innovation that relates and includes the different aspects - in a way that gives the necessary clarity and meaning for those who need it most - the innovators and entrepreneurs.

General Purpose Engines of Growth - General Purpose Technologies are much sought after providing opportunities for market disruption - but how to identify their emergence and provide timely, appropriate support?

1. We often use the term technology loosely without much thought about what it actually means. Most definitions of technology agree on a single central point and that is, technology is the use or application of scientific knowledge. Hence, a technology comes about as a result of science which means science has to precede the technology.
2. The definition I use for a ‘technology’ is this - the application of scientific knowledge as a single or multiple component(s) of a product, service or process.
3. Hence a technology represents an intermediate stage between the scientific research and the development of a product, service or process.
4. Technologies are of particular interest in innovation because the hope is always for the emergence, of what is called a platform technology - a technology that has wide applicability across a large number of sectors. Such platform technologies have great commercial potential and are referred to as General Purpose Technologies - abbreviated to the acronym GPT.
5. General Purpose Technologies were first defined in 1995 by Timothy Bresnahan and Manuel Trajtenberg as technologies having three essential characteristics in that they are (i) pervasive (widely used) (ii) capable of ongoing technical improvement, and (iii) enable innovation, making it easier to invent and derive new products or processes in a wide range of sectors.
6. They are therefore by their very nature, radical and disruptive in the market and are seen as key engines of growth, thereby affecting the whole economy.
7. Economists have shown interested in GPTs because throughout history whole eras of economic growth appear to have been driven by technologies that have had wide spread application and impact.
8. Classic examples of such GPTs are the steam engine, electricity, semi-conductors, and more recently ICT, nanotechnology, biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing - all as emerging GPTs .
9. It is difficult to anticipate the emergence of General Purpose Techology - from an economic perspective - the ability to identify an emerging GPT, to understand and realise their potential and then front-load investment and IP protection across a wide range of sectors would benefit the inventor and their host nation.
10. The measurement of GPTs has proved difficult and contentious because while theoretical models may explain their characteristics, benefits and the capture value from GPTs, empirical methods to identify their emergence have so far lagged well behind.
11. The handful of available attempts are typically context-specific and are retrospective. For investors, government research funders and policy makers involved in technology strategy and delivery, it means that any classification of a potential GPT, when available, essentially arrives too late.
12. Classification is difficult because boundaries are not precise - so what distinguishes GPTs from other technologies is only a matter of degree. So there will always be technologies that are almost, but not quite a GPT.
13. One solution to this challenge, that I have considered, is to recognise degrees of continuity between GPTs at one extreme of a spectrum and at the other - what might be called Specific Purpose Technologies (SPTs).
14. Based on the six characteristics of a GPT identified by Clifford Beckar, Kenneth Carlaw and Richard Lipsey in their 2018 paper, the degree of variation across the spectrum from GPT to SPT can be scored - thus providing a cumulative value that can provide some measure of the degree to which a new technology may err towards a general purpose and - Hence, their potential prioritisation for investors, government supported research and policy interventions.
15. However, even with prior notice of an emerging GPT it is not always possible to react quick enough to adequately protect or ensure benefits accrue to the home nation. Graphene is a good example of this difficulty - having so many potential applications in industry such as electronics, smart textiles, biosensors, drug delivery, water filtration, super-capacitors and much much more which means graphite qualifies as a GPT - it becomes almost impossible to claim and protect all relevant fields.
16. A predictive tool to identify the emergence of GPTs for governments and investors would be invaluable - I have considered only a simple means by which it may be possible to review technologies as they develop and categories them as GPTs - Whether or not this or other more sophisticated models are workable, remains to be seen, but the need is real.

Half the problem may only give you half a solution - Opportunity may be science or market-led but the predominant research model is that based on science supply, requiring translation as opposed to market-led interdisciplinary research that meets end-user needs from the outset.

1. In 2010, I published an article in the journal Science in Parliament entitled “A Gap in the Innovation Market”. I was at the time a Vice President of the UK Parliamentary and Scientific Committee.
2. I wrote the article because I had continued over a number of years to be vexed by an issue that remains an issue - nearly 15 years later. I wrote:
3. “I am constantly amazed that despite the importance of the market in all other aspects of UK politics and economics, how little influence it appears to have in debates about scientific innovation and the organisation of our research base…
4. The market seems to have only a very limited role in our nation’s innovation process which is very much science supply-led rather than market demand-led. The market appears to be viewed only as a beneficiary of outputs of a process which may or may not meet particular market opportunities rather than the main driver of demand for specific scientific innovations.”
5. I am not alone in holding such views but the startling fact is that someone else who shared my concern was an economist writing in 1966 - that economist was Jacob Schmookler.
6. Now more widely accepted by economists, the view of Jacob Schmookler confirming a link between market needs as a driver of invention, have not found their way into mainstream science and research, particularly with regard to the public sector.
7. It can be, and it is right to argue that industry research is certainly geared up to take into account markets and demand, but often also companies look to steer a market and regulations in the direction of its products and services as much as designing them to meet the needs and specifications of their end-users.
8. The market is, should be, and needs to be - a driver of innovation, since opportunities for innovation do not just arise from science alone, or are not just science or technology-led, but rather opportunities derived from problems or gaps in the market - they can be market-led - Market-led innovations.
9. It is as if we are looking at a singular one-way process from scientific research to technology and eventually bringing a benefit to an unspecified market - without ever considering that research carried out at the market-end can also deliver opportunities through identifying genuine market gaps. This would imply that research into markets will identify emerging trends, problems, gaps, opportunities for which scientific solutions are required. But no one undertakes that research into markets. This is the counter to scientific research exploring gaps in scientific knowledge. But where is the public research institute undertaking market research to identify opportunities for market-led innovation.
10. Everyone has a “notion of market” but who really studies, creates structures, typologies and undertakes analyses to search for gaps and opportunities - Commercial companies certainly produce analyses but these are aimed at informing other businesses, with data price tags to match, and they are not necessarily looking for gaps or needs, or asking what specifications of product, service or process requirements to fill those gaps and needs.
11. If we think of innovation being set between two complementary capacities and resources - one of science and the other of market … in each case both an input for, and an output of the other, then why would we pursue only a single route of science-supply-led innovation. Science can be led by the market and be a beneficiary of opportunities generated by the market - the market should not be regarded as some distant receptacle in receipt of a votive offering from science, and worse not even an appropriate offering for the market.
12. A simple conclusion that can be drawn from such a consideration is that billions are annually spent on one kind of input, scientific research in order to deliver innovation to the market, but only minuscule amounts of public sector money by comparison is dedicated to the search and research of markets for innovation.
13. If market gaps and opportunities can be identified and the scientific research needed to deliver a solution or meet a need in the market, if the technical specifications of that need can be identified, then the research problem can be designed specifically to meet that need.
14. In such a scenario, a single discipline approach to designing a solution is less likely, as we then encourage true interdisciplinary collaborative efforts with each discipline making a targeted contribution needed as component of an overall solution.
15. Such an approach gives greater meaning and purpose to interdisciplinary research and focusses research effort on delivery of relevant inputs from each party - who could argue that such an approach is not required!