Institute for Innovation & Information Productivity

Worldly Advice from the World Bank to Bulgaria

Daniel W. Rasmus writes: It sometimes seems arbitrary, and it often seems out of context, when a country is given advice on how to increase parity with its neighbors. On 29 September 2007, New Europe posted a short article on Bulgaria (read it here) that country advice about how to reach the economic levels of its EU compatriots. The headline is about productivity, but the article is also about innovation investment, the education system and the currently underqualified labor pool. This says that any one measure of success is a more reflection of the actual issues in Bulgaria. Bulgaria, in other words, must reinvent itself along multiple dimensions in order to succeed.

But I also call into question if success is to be just a benchmark against the EU. If innovation is really the issue, is going as well as the EU at the same things the EU does really the right advice? In moments of economic crisis, could Bulgaria's leaders be persuaded to seem themselves are part of a larger competitive model, and look to the East for lessons and opportunities - in management of relationships with China and India, and an Infohub for Europe - or any number of other emerging economy ideas from biotechnology to sustainable energy, that would not have them at parity, but in a leading position.

Of course, that would mean still looking at education, at innovation investment and other factors, but instead of vague abstracts, a national strategy that points toward goals other than "parity" could invigorate the nation in a way leadership does and competitive positioning often fails to do. Vision informs the content of what is taught, it informs the investment choices - being an also ran in the world economy may be OK, but is it really the advice the World Bank should be giving in a world where success is about local differentiation within the context of a world market, not just keeping up with your neighbors?

Stumbling Toward Innovation - Or Diversity?

Michael LoBue, CAE writes: Antoine van Agtmael makes some excellent points in his guest commentary (Newsweek International Edition) entitled Stumbling Toward Innovation.

But, is it enough to think that adversity alone is to account for how some companies are able to grab success from the jaws of flamming failures?  van Agtmael cites Embraer's highly successful turn around as a plane maker, TSMC's success as a logic semiconductor wafer maker - from a start-up (Taiwan) - and Aracruz's success redefining the pulp industry -- and others.  I think diversity has everything to do with it!

Certainly overwhelming failures (and obstacles) may be the catalyst for change, but let's face it, many companies face overwhelming failures and obstacles and don't pull it out.  If turning it around is the result of management being able to see things differently, then why not make this capability systemic in an organization?  Isn't diversity (however you want to define it) the path?

 

Innovation is a Mind-Set not an R&D Line Item

Michael LoBue, CAE writes:   Langdon Morris' blog post How Dell Plans to Beat Apple raises some excellent points about what it takes for Dell to compete with Apple.  But upon some reflection, following a comment posting to his blog post, I'm not sure I would agree as strongly with his contention that Dell needs to increase its internal R&D budget as a way to succeed in their new strategy to "beat Apple".

I'm not aware of any research showing that innovation needs to come from within the company vs. through outsourced strategies to be more valuable.  However, Dell can take one clear lesson from Apple in this department; Apple has been a successful innovator because they have nearly always focused on the user -- well, perhaps apart from some of the silliness during the "Scully years"!  I can recall during the 1980's (pre-Sculley) Apple was the oddity in Silicon Valley because they not only hired "liberal arts majors", they sought them out.  That piece of innovative thinking alone may be the most significant "innovation" behind the Apple success.

Increasing the R&D budget alone, or bringing it in-house, isn't going to help unless Dell's management knows what they're looking for -- to be able to recognize a solution to a real user need vs. a superficial change like a rainbow of color choices.  An innovation should be measured by how well it solves a user's problem, not how intricate the solution (technology) involved.

Is a Productivity Slump a Boost for Innovation?

Daniel W. Rasmus writes: your can read the rest of this on my Future of Work blog (here), but in the meantime, please ponder this:

Think about the productivity of peripheral vision - the ability to consistently sense that something is coming that you should react to. Reaction can be retreat, or it can be confrontation, but if you don't see something coming, you can't do either - which is why productivity as a strictly linear notion has seen its day pass, but we may not have enough productivity of peripheral vision to notice.

As we define productivity, we need to think about many non-linear or extra-linear dimensions because productivity is not just about efficiency, it is about taking "productive" advantage of your surrounding, of you situation, and that may mean jumping a track rather than going down the same track faster.

(For background, see the post here:Productivity and the Crisis of Capital- that started this line of thinking.)

Need for Innovation Measures Draws National Attention

Daniel W. Rasmus writes: In a September 4, 2007 news release by the US Department of Commerce, the agency outlines steps it is taking to better understand innovation (read the release here). The team is stellar to say the least, but I'm not convinced the timeframe is realistic. One of the reasons we formed the IIIP was in recognition of the long road from the industrial age mentality to information and knowledge age metrics. And we don't believe innovation can be seen in isolation from productivity, because at the end of the day, if the transformation in the base of the economy becomes one of measuring intangibles, then innovation is something that will need to be measured in terms of something like the "productivity of ideas."

I think it is imperative, however, that we go after these lofty goals from many angles, and if the Department of Commerce is looking to new measurements, then we are moving in the direction of recognition, and we look forward to seeing their work, and even working with them as their efforts continue.