Irving Wladawsky-Berger

Innovation Teams 2.0

It was not all that long ago that innovation was viewed as something that took place almost exclusively in academia, as well as in R&D labs in the private and public sectors.  The scientific and technological knowledge resulting from such research, then made its way to new products and services in the private sector, and advanced weapons for the military.  Such a lab-centric model of knowledge and innovation, relied primarily on the scientists and technologists working in the labs to come up with new ideas and products, which they then threw over the transom to those responsible for marketing, selling and customer support. 

This ivory tower view of innovation made sense in the industrial economy of the last two hundred years, when our primary focus was on inventing, developing and manufacturing physical objects.  But the model started to break down several years ago.  A surprising finding in the IBM 2006 Global CEO Study was that when asked where they looked for fresh ideas and sources of innovations, CEOs cited clients, business partners and employees in general about two to three times more often than their own R&D labs, which were mentioned by just over 15%.  This clearly would not have been the case only a decade ago.

I believe that this is another indicator of the massive shift that is taking place in the very nature of innovation, as we are transitioning from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy.  A growing portion of a company's innovation is now taking place in the marketplace, where clients, business partners and a large fraction of the employees are found - not just in R&D labs as was the case in the past.  How then do you now organize innovation in a company - when the real experts are those employees closest to the marketplace and the products and services that their clients buy and use?

The 2008 IBM Global CEO Study

IBM just released the 2008 Global CEO Study.  IBM has been conducting such studies every two years for the last several years by interviewing hundreds of CEO's around the world.

Four years ago, the 2004 study found that CEOs were emerging from the depressed business environment caused by the bursting of the dot com bubble, and were beginning to shift their priorities from cost cutting to driving profitable growth and strengthening overall financial performance. 

The overriding theme of the 2006 Global CEO Study was innovation.  CEOs were starting to recognize that innovation cannot be treated as just a marketing initiative and delegated down in the organization.  They realized that their organizations had to make fundamental changes to respond to the significant external forces all around them.  They were learning how difficult it was to drive change in the organization.  Therefore, to be successful, innovation had to be orchestrated from the top, with the CEO personally leading the charge.

The Enterprise of the Future is the key theme of the 2008 CEO Study.  The study is based on face-to-face interviews with 1130 CEOs in 40 countries across 32 industries.  They are distributed fairly evenly around the world, with roughly one third each from the Americas, EMEA and AP.

Funding of Research and Education in the 21st Century

For over sixty years, the Federal Government has assumed the major funding responsibilities for basic research and higher education to promote science and technology in the US.  The blueprint for government support of R&D was laid out in 1945 by presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush in his seminal report, Science The Endless Frontier.  In the report he wrote that "The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth."  His recommendations led to the creation of the National Science Foundation a few years later.

Ever since, we have looked to key Washington institutions - the National Science Foundation, as well as the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Commerce and others, - as having the lead responsibility for funding advanced research.  This is particularly true when it comes to Grand Challenge problems, that is, problems that are both very important to the nation and very difficult, and thus require breakthroughs from multiple groups across multiple disciplines.

But, I wonder if something is changing in the funding model for fundamental research and higher education.  Over the last few months, I participated in a few meetings where similar questions keep coming up: can we continue to look to the federal government to help organize and fund major important national initiatives?  We are not so sure any more.  Even beyond the fact that research and education have not been high priorities in the present administration, perhaps something more profound is going on.

A Dialogue on Race

The other day, a memory from a long, long time ago suddenly popped into my head.

In 1962, I was a 17 year old senior finishing high school at the Laboratory Schools - the wonderful K-12 schools associated with the University of Chicago.  In those days, Hyde Park, the Chicago neighborhood where the U of C is located, was one of the most racially diverse neighborhoods in the country, and the Lab Schools’ student population reflected that diversity.  A significant portion of the students came from middle-class black families living in Hyde Park and nearby areas. 

As I remember, sometime toward the end of our senior year our class was invited to a party at a doorman building in the fancy section of Hyde Park near Lake Michigan.  I went in a car with some of my friends, and as we approached the entrance of the building, we saw that three of our fellow students that had gone ahead of us were talking to the doorman.  This group of three included a girl who happened to be black - as were so many of our classmates in the Lab Schools.  But the doorman would not let her go up to the party, because, he said, that blacks were not allowed in the building. 

This group of three did not argue with the doorman - they just turned around and left.  I wish I could now write that I also turned around and left with them, but I did not.  I don't know why.  I went up to the party along with the rest of the group I was with.  I knew the girl who was giving the party, Linda, fairly well, and recall that she was very upset.  She had tried to convince the doorman to let everyone up, but was unable to do so because this was the policy of the building.