branscomb k4dev 031204

Research & Innovation Systems for High Tech Commercial Innovations: 

Research & Innovation Systems for High Tech Commercial Innovations Knowledge for Development Seminar December 4, 2003 Lewis M Branscomb, Harvard University Internal and External Knowledge Sources Knowledge for Development Seminar, Center for International Development Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, December 4, 2003

OUTLINE OF TALK: 

OUTLINE OF TALK Background Nomenclature Codified vs. tacit knowledge Intellectual property Vertical vs. Horizontal Firm Structure Henry Ergas’ Dynamic Model of Innovation Evolutionary vs. Radical Innovation Schumpeter’s “Creative Destruction”

Outline of Talk (cont’d): 

Outline of Talk (cont’d) Sources and sinks of technical knowledge for commercial innovation Demand Function for Commercial Knowledge Who sets performance requirements? Table of relationships between demand for and sources of technical knowledge Sources of commercial ideas Model for science-based innovation process Universities and high tech innovations

Outline of Talk (cont’d ii): 

Outline of Talk (cont’d ii) The broken link between research productivity and propensity to innovate. Geographic and sector concentration Percent of patents converted to innovations Social Capital: trusted networks for innovation Communications among the parties and trust. Is industry really different from other sectors?

Nomenclature: 

Nomenclature Basic and applied research are rarely useful distinctions in industry. Research [knowledge acquisition] and Innovation [knowledge commercialization] are the key issues An Innovation is the successful entry to the market of a novel product, process, or business model. An Invention is an Idea or concept for a new product or process. [Creating an innovation from an invention is a high risk venture.] Radical, high-tech Innovations create new markets with new technology and may destabilize an existing mature industry

Codified vs. Tacit knowledge: 

Codified vs. Tacit knowledge Rapid progress in science since WWII drives codification of knowledge previously tacit. This accelerates global diffusion and absorption of practical knowledge Sources of useful knowledge are now more diverse. Tacit knowledge still key, but focused more on mastery of complex production, product and service systems.

Intellectual Property: 

Intellectual Property Critical constraint on use of commercial knowledge, preserving temporary monopoly. In theory accelerates knowledge diffusion while limiting profitable use. Effect very different in each industry [*], depending on Age and novelty of the technology Breadth of opportunity to invent around patents Size of the firms in the industry Speed to market and regulatory constraints on speed There is growing feeling in larger firms that IP protection in US may be growing too slow, too expensive and too strong. [*] Computer industry is heavily cross-licensed; Biotech industry depends on strong IP protection. Dot.com firms try to protect business models.

Vertical vs Horizontal Structures: 

Vertical vs Horizontal Structures Traditionally large firms sought to be self sufficient (vertical) to protect monopoly. Now need to accelerate innovation rate leads to outsourcing component and subsystem inventions to SMEs in supply chain. Subcontracts based on performance specifications Supply chain integration may lead to co-development This accelerates technical knowledge diffusion

Henry Ergas Model of Innovation: 

Henry Ergas Model of Innovation Dynamic model recognizing feedback loops from suppliers, users, providers of complementary assets, government and society large. Generation: [all the steps from conception to innovation] Application: [commercialization – full product line, distribution, customer service, user feedback Verticalization: [Responses from supply chain, providers of complementary assets, user restructuring Diffusion: [Societal adjustments: institutional shifts, training changes, government regulation…]

Evolutionary versus Radical Innovation : 

Evolutionary versus Radical Innovation Almost all GDP growth is due to evolutionary growth of existing markets, services and production processes $200 billion in R&D was funded by private industry in 2002 Supports a $9,800 billion GDP Of this only about $16 billion funded R&D for radical innovations Producing very modest revenue Total venture capital was $21 billion Only 500 new high tech firms created from universities.

Evolutionary versus Radical Innovation: “Creative Destruction”: 

Evolutionary versus Radical Innovation: “Creative Destruction” “The fundamental impulse that… keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates.” “This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. It is what capitalism consists in and what every capitalist concern has got to live in….” J.A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 1942 [ see pp 82-85 in Harper Press edition of 1975] Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883-1950)

Slide12: 

IBM PC Digital Cameras DVD Automobiles Electronics Cameras MRI Cell-phone

Demand function for commercial knowledge: 

Demand function for commercial knowledge Strongest demand is for incremental improvements especially in production and business processes funding market justified, direction driven by customers Next strongest demand comes from customer/end user expectations in rapidly developing, newer, more science-based industries Funding market justified by subsidized by government research interests, direction driven by competitive opportunities Third is from radical, out-of-core and new firm opportunities Many originating from or derivative of government-funded research; require angel investor, government, or corporate venture capital funding, direction driven by entrepreneurial vision. Last is general investment in knowledge base to inform technical road maps and guide choices and business decisions – internally funded and direction driven by core competence strategy.

Who sets the performance requirements?Visionaries, investors, customers, end-users? : 

Who sets the performance requirements? Visionaries, investors, customers, end-users? What the customer wants may not be what the customer needs. Small firms often carry burden of testing the viability of meeting those needs in absence of expressed demand. Customer wants may not coincide with end-user needs; innovations must satisfy both.

Slide15: 

Relationship between source of demand for technical Knowledge and sources of demand satisfaction

Sources of commercial ideas: 

Sources of commercial ideas Individual entrepreneurs with a commercial vision and a passion for success. Universities, spinning out new firms and licensing new inventions. Government research commercialized through licenses and joint ventures Angel investors and others with novel business model or market opportunity, looking for the technology Spin-outs from Corporate Research in large firms

Model for Science-based Innovation Process: 

Model for Science-based Innovation Process Good idea but will it work? Critical stage is the technical entrepreneur’s ability to reduce his concept to a manufacturable product of known performance characteristics functionally suited to an identified market of sufficient size. [Early Stage Technology Development] Do you have the data to convince investors? This information is then documented in a business case whose returns on investment, after all risks are included is sufficient to attract $7 million from one or more venture capital companies or a similar amount from a manufacturer.

Universities and high-tech innovations (Y2000): 

Universities and high-tech innovations (Y2000) 8,500 patents filed by US universities $1.26B in royalties to US universities from 4,346 licenses in FY2000. 454 spin-off companies from universities US universities took equity interest in 56% of those deals --- up 46% from 1999. Research universities are now creating their own seed Venture Capital funds Data from Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) www.autm.net

Geographic and Industry sector concentration of innovation investments: 

Geographic and Industry sector concentration of innovation investments Skew of private investments by business sector: IT, retail, medical & biotech were 76 % of total in ‘99 Skew of private investment by geography CA, MA, NY, TX received 67 % of total VC in ’99

Percent of patents to converted to innovations (1982):: 

San Jose (Silicon Valley) innovations/patents = 57% (highest among all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas with 100+ patents) Boston (MA): 35% Cleveland (Ohio): 18% Washington DC: 13% Albany/Schenectady/Troy (New York): 0.3% (lowest among all U.S. metropolitan statistical areas MSAs with 100+ patents) Percent of patents to converted to innovations (1982):

Geographical concentration of patents and Innovations (U.S. 1982): 

Source (Acs, Anselin, and Varga 2002); “innovation” counts from the U.S. Small Business Administration Geographical concentration of patents and Innovations (U.S. 1982)

Social Capital: trusted networks for innovation: 

Social Capital: trusted networks for innovation Capturing benefits locally Examples of Si Valley & Boston vs. Cleveland & Albany Building on, vs. displacing existing economy 80% of university based startups in same state. Using the tools of innovation policy with local government to increase social capital. Partnerships and consortia may enhance – or be evidence of -- social capital. Richard Florida’s discovery of the correlates to a community’s innovation potential.   Richard Florida, Rise of the Creative Class: And How It's Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life – Basic Books 2002

Communications and Trust: 

Communications and Trust Technical innovator confident of success but risks failure if nature is not compliant. Business executive acts only when assured that risks are manageable. Venture capitalists rely on networks of trust and actively manage new firms. Success depends on access to networks of trust in the community

Is Industry Really Different?: 

Is Industry Really Different? Only in degree – all sectors, public and private, find the exploitation of knowledge is imbedded in a complex fabric of institutional and human relationships But Industry Must produce and sell things, not just ideas. Has to move quickly (relatively) Is buffeted by external competitive forces and unpredictable consumer attitudes Is unavoidably global Must take risks whether it wants to or not.

Its not the “R”Its not the “D”It’s the “&”: 

Its not the “R” Its not the “D” It’s the “&” - Phil Auerswald