How To Farm Lightning™: sustainable innovation

Why social media for the ageing exec?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:07:00 +0000

Colleague and associate Brad Matthews asked the question so here is my list; what are yours? Please add......

1. Naturally inquisitive and open to new anything
2. Just a bit geekish…
3. Prefer to make own decisions about relevance and use of new things
4. Fear of being left behind
5. Wanting to connect with younger peers, staff or children
6. See the potential to improve the way they work or the way their organisation operates
7. Recognise limitations of email (no history, transparency, one to one or one to few, closed, targeted etc)
8. Thought leader looking for new channels to lead
9. Looking for inspiration, being challenged, new contacts for any reason
10. Bored
11. Want to control its use in their organisation
12. Recognise the limitations of existing communications channels
13. Their dog is more techno-savvy than they are
14. They recognise that existing knowledge and systems do not capture the value of conversations ie they are ‘off balance sheet’
15. A way to reach-out to peers beyond their industry
16. Fear of being left behind as the circus you know moves out of town
17. Word of Mouse replaces Word of mouth
18. Virtual business model breaks down through lack of trust - Social Media to the resue?
19. ???

Looking for rural comms challenges in Africa!

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:04:00 +0000

I'm looking for help to shape and focus this project for Science for Humanity, details at http://scienceforhumanity.ning.com/group/rodboroughradio.

If you have any NGO contacts in Africa or other developing markets looking for solutions to rural comms problems then let me or Anu Devi (Project Coordinator) at Science for Humanity know!

Are the dynamics of innovation changing?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:44:00 +0000

A comment I posted in response to MIT's Sloan Management Review article entitled "Are the dynamics of innovation changing?"

"Our work at Brendan Dunphy Associates is predominantly with corporations in the ICT space in Europe and I would give a qualified “yes” to the second question. I think it is clear that the work of Christensen has increased awareness at the leadership level of the challenges they face when it comes to instigating radical innovation. However, this awareness is rarely acted upon with the result that they still struggle to create an environment that is capable of generating disruptive innovation. There appear to be a number of deep-seated reasons for this associated with their personal & corporate attitude to risk & reward, inappropriate culture and behaviour and the sheer difficulty of envisaging and effecting the scale of change required without disrupting the current operational efficiency of the business and short-term goals. Partnership, ventures and acquisitions are a typical response to increase innovation capacity and ‘import innovation’ but success is very patchy given the lack of knowledge and discipline as to how best do integrate and nurture these activities.

If, as the article suggests, the bigger challenges we face require ‘boundary busting’ only possible via larger organisations (and public bodies?) then we are certainly going to need significant innovations in innovation to make this a reality given the differing cultures, language, traditions and business models this will entail.

Maybe we can learn from the application and adoption of Disruptive Innovation theory to better understand the practical constraints corporations pose to any innovation theory and thus better help them assess the both the opportunities on offer and develop the new innovation capabilities that will be necessary to thrive in the future?"

Managing beyond Web 2.0 Companies should prepare now for the day when Web 2.0 morphs into Web 3.0.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:22:00 +0000

I posted this comment in response to "Managing beyond Web 2.0 - Companies should prepare now for the day when Web 2.0 morphs into Web 3.0" on McKinsey Quarterly.

"One only needs to see the impact of failing to react to incorrect allegations spread by the web by reading this WSJ article published today (http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/50815,news,iran-nokia-boycott-may-be-unjustified-mobile-phone-freedom-speech-tehran-surveillance) and concerning Nokia Siemens Networks alleged complicity in providing technology subsequently used by the Iranian state to track and suppress dissent. The most telling remark is at the very end from Ben Roome, a spokesman for Nokia Siemens Networks (Head of Media Relations according to his LinkedIn profile) , “Our failure to kill that speculation at the outset has obviously led to a lot of concern about our work in Iran." Interestingly, Ben is a frequent Twitterer on this very issue as well as others re his interests and employment but when it comes to establishing the facts it is clear that it takes more than a web 2.0 channel and a lone voice to correct a flawed perception spread by that very same channel. It requires the organisation behind the spokesman to react in web 2.0 time and display a level of focus, imagination and determination previously unimagined and this is clearly not the strength of most industrial-era organisations past their sell-by date (especially B2B). Bringing them into the world of web 2.0 poses many challenges and no amount of PR sticking plaster will hide the fact that they are not organisationally designed to compete in this accelerated post-industrial era."

RE-IMAGINING INNOVATION: HOLD THE SCIENTISTS AND BRING ON THE PRACTITIONERS

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:17:00 +0000

I posted this comment in response to this piece in the Ivey Business Journal, RE-IMAGINING INNOVATION: HOLD THE SCIENTISTS AND BRING ON THE PRACTITIONERS by Declan Jordan

"Declan seems to argue that large-scale investment in technology innovation by public agencies and government does not positively impact businesses and could be better focused to do so. This may well be the case in Ireland (and elsewhere) but I think there is a danger that the technology-led innovation baby is thrown out with the enterprise promotion and growth bathwater. The linkage between the two is worthy of clarification and may lead to a better understanding of how best to promote enterprise. But it is important to understand that we need more, not less, “techno-fetishism” and large scale public and enterprise scientific investment in the future if we are to address the large-scale problems posed by climate change, renewable energy, population aging, pandemics, widening global inequality, 9 billion mouths to feed in 2050 etc etc.

It is also worth noting that in the USA and the rest of Europe (if not Ireland) almost all businesses have been doing to varying degrees exactly what Declan proposes for the last 10 years i.e. listening to and engaging contributions from managers, salespeople and customers, increasingly via the Internet. This is not to be discouraged and I am sure we will see this trend continue as the connectivity internet technologies enable within and outside the enterprise improve and the principles of more ‘open’ innovation involving all stakeholders gains ground in more conservative industries.

However, it can be argued that this focusing on the ‘edge’ of the organisation for innovation insights and activity has led to a move away from internal R&D and created a problem we have today of a vast increase in ‘me too’ and low-value innovations and a dearth of radical or breakthrough innovation focused on solving real problems or moving the goal posts. This trend may also reflect an increased risk-averseness in enterprises (partly due to the dominance of the CFO and their inappropriate financial metrics) as well as ignorance as to the role, value and processes of innovation and the implications for its long term absence. If this trend continues unabated then maybe we will see a permanent shift in the innovation eco-system where all meaningful research is publicly funded or in partnership with the private sectors with the role of commercial enterprise innovation limited to connecting, listening & adapting rather than risking the innovation journey itself?"

Vodafone Receiver N°22 - Seizing the moment: The lamp posts on Brick Lane

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Tue, 26 May 2009 14:50:00 +0000

A comment on Vodafone's Receiver N°22 article "Seizing the Moment: The Lamp Posts on Brick Lane"

"I work in the innovation space and one related observation I have is the correlation of our increased connectedness on our expectations of and appetite for radical innovation.

As the article points-out, email, texts and Twitter ‘demand’ a response and demand it ‘now’ and this pressure to respond can be to the detriment of considered thought and result. One trend in innovation for the last 10 years or so has been away from radical and longer-term innovation that requires significant time and money (but therefore high risk) towards shorter term more evolutionary innovation with lower risks and clearer, shorter-term payback.

There may be several reasons for this increased ‘risk averseness’ and short-termism (which can be observed elsewhere in society, especially politics) including market de-regulation, increased competition as a result of globalisation, more demanding stock holders, a bonus culture that rewards the short-term and reduced public investment in fundamental (long-term) research. But at a personal level I have also witnessed how much more difficult it seems to be to get individuals engaged in corporate innovation activities to ‘disengage’ from the present in order to conceive of radically different futures and more radical innovations.

There appears to be both more reluctance to do this now than there used to be, an increased unwillingness to live with the uncertainty and lack of an ‘answer’ or a clear response that this process necessarily entails. There is a palpable desire to retreat back to their more ‘transactional’ comfort zone of question or statement/response ie the answer is ‘out there’ if we could only access it and its frustrating not to be able to do so, there is no simple response.

Does our increased connectedness have any bearing on this observation? Have we become less open to embrace and live with uncertainty as a result of increased connectedness and is this more disturbing than enlivening? Does our increased connectedness have deeper ramifications for the way we think and perceive the world and is there a danger they accelerate ‘short-termism’ and therefore our ability to make the more considered and radical changes needed, in politics and society as well as corporate innovation? I appreciate hearing your experience and views."

Innovation briefs....

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 22:06:00 +0000

The Guardian highlighted innovations in cement in "Revealed: The cement that eats carbon dioxide" but a closer look reveals that the UK cement industry is far from optimistic about its future....

I came across Afri Gadget somehow or other and was struck by how simple innovation can be. Sometimes it is too easy to assume innovation is about big bucks, IP and complexity but maybe it is wise to return to basics, at least now and again? In Africa there is often no alternative....

Innovation is also a strong theme at Timbukto Chronicles - "A view of Africa and Africans with a focus on entrepreneurship, innovation, technology, practical remedies and other self sustaining activities by Emeka Okafor" - take a look and leave a comment for Emeka, TED (You Tube for the brain...) Africa Director...

And finaly in this brief round-up of my innovation surfing, take a look at my post at the Science for Humanity forum on the value and challenges for cellular mobile in Africa - there is hope!

Government, bureaucracy and innovation failure...

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:12:00 +0000

The text below was taken from a recent WBCSD newsletter concerning a recent visit to one of the few UK biomass power generation plant’s; it nicely illustrates the bureaucratic challenges government presents to innovators :

“The plant also suffers from some policy decisions: The environment agency has stopped them from using a local source of oversize compost as a fuel as they define it as “WASTE”. Use of this locally sourced fuel was part of the operational budget for the plant. The response seemed to be that the problem was site-specific although there are still no clear guidelines as to what clean wood chip is defined as-a ‘fuel’ or ‘waste’. As the biomass sector develops this will become more of an issue.

The plant was partially funded by capital grants from Dti Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme and Advantage West Midlands. Unless these grants are repaid the plant is unable to benefit from ROC’s on the energy it delivers which again substantially upsets the operating budget.

These crazy decisions could only arise in the UK where we purport to support renewable energy initiatives but stick lots of red tape all over them. No wonder we lag well behind the rest of Europe!!”

So What?

What can we do to remove these barriers and create a more hospitable environment for much needed innovations such as these? Is ‘joined-up’ government still a vision rather than a reality? Government is keen to promote innovation but what part is it playing in innovation failure and what more should it do to remove barriers?

(The above comment first appeared at as a part of a NESTA discussion "Failing to Innovate" on innovation and failure.

Do Patent Pools restrict innovation?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:30:00 +0000

This post on TechDirt by Mike Masnic agrees with recent research by Stanford academics Ryan Lampe and Petra Moser “Do Patent Pools Encourage Innovation?
Evidence from the 19th-Century Sewing Machine Industry” that patent pools restrict innovation, essentially by "locking-in" innovation at a level beyond which there is no incentive to improve.

Patent pooling is increasingly common in high-tech where thousands of patents from multiple owners have to be licensed in a device such as a mobile phone. Patent pooling such as in this announcement "Patent Pooling Could Reduce LTE Competition" for LTE next generation mobile technology are meant to ease the traditional bilateral negotiations between patent owners - to agree fees, avoid litigation and reduce product release delays – all potentially expensive outcomes.

But are they good or bad for innovation? As Mike says,

“The core problem, once again, is confusing innovation (finding something that the market actually wants in a way that it wants it) with invention (coming up with something new). When you get a patent, or set up a patent pool, what you're effectively doing is declaring a stop on any incremental improvements above that. It ignores the fact that real innovation is an ongoing and never ending process of improvements and tweaks, often made by others. But, in blocking out the ability of others to make those improvements -- those real innovations -- you slow down, drastically, the pace of innovation. In the end, a patent pool is just like a bigger patent, and has the same negative impact on innovation, just on a larger scale.”

So What?

I don’t disagree with Mike that patent pools may restrict further innovation in their own domain but he seems to forget the fact that in at least some domains, like mobile, it is essential to have a stable and economic platform at a viable cost in the market and patent pooling exists to accelerate this process. Further activities in the mobile value chain depend on it, such as applications and content, and given the complexity and pace of change in products is there a viable altenaive?

For example, without an economically viable standard for LTE (for which the patent pooling announcement above is intended to help deliver) ‘dependent’ innovation in operating systems, applications and content technologies will be delayed, more expensive or less universal as a result and thus delaying uptake, usage and value to the consumer – the ultimate purpose of innovating in the first place.

Maybe patent pools are a constraint on innovation but maybe they are necessary if we are to generate innovation in other domains further up the value chain? Their use may help to release this innovation more quickly, cheaply or widely and as a result an inferior innovation (or standard that results) is a price worth paying?

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:10:00 +0000

Greenpeace Sarkobama viral campaign poster in Paris.....courtesy of Cedric at http://cedric-paris2e.blogspot.com/2008/12/sarkobama-revealed.html

Siemens ‘Inventors of the Year’ solve real world problems

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:44:00 +0000

“Our success is based on efficient innovation management. This can only be achieved when our innovation strategy is part of our business strategy and is geared toward attractive markets with long-term growth prospects.”

Professor Hermann Requardt, CTO and CEO of Siemens’s Healthcare Sector at the last Siemens annual ‘Inventors of the Year’ awards in Munich back in October.

So What?

I though this was an interesting quote as many firms appear to think innovation exists separately from business strategy and markets, that it exists in a disconnected and parallel world to thir present reality. Because of this they struggle to see and access it; innovation always remains an idyllic destination (the sandy beached pacific island?) that is beyond their reach or means.

Too many innovation processes (where they exist at all) do not start with a grounding in business and market strategy but with a vague hope that innovation can re-invent the business based solely on the inspiration and knowledge of individuals. Strategy, research, data and customers are often viewed as an encumbrance that can only limit and reduce the potential and scope for innovation rather than help to focus and stimulate it.

This failure to anchor an innovation process to the problems and opportunities of the marketplace and the strengths and assets of the business can lead to ill-conceived innovation initiatives that will not achieve their stated goals but contribute to a sense of failure, stasis or under-achievement.

In these uncertain economic times it is more important than ever to ensure we focus our innovation investments and the best place to start is to ensure they are firmy anchored in satisfying the needs of the business, customers and markets.

More on the Siemens awards at "Siemens increases number of patents by 10% to 55,000" at finchannel.com.

McKinsey's Assessing Innovation Metrics Global Survey Results

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:58:00 +0000

Some interesting stats from this McKinsey survey (Assessing innovation metrics: McKinsey Global Survey Results) that deserve to be highlighted:

65 percent rank innovation in their top 3 strategic initiatives in 2008 compared to 70 percent in 2007.
16% of the respondents say that their companies don’t use any metrics to assess innovations.
Companies are much likelier to rely on metrics for outputs than for inputs.
Respondents say that their companies use about eight metrics, on average, to assess innovations.

Successful innovators take more of a portfolio approach and use metrics to help create a balanced portfolio.

So What?

From the H2FL perspective the relatively sparse use of metrics is interesting as it suggests a palette of 8 metrics can be sufficient to gain the necessary feedback and control across a portfolio of projects.

In my experience the portfolio concept much loved of VC’s is still not appreciated outside of some large corporates. I think there is more work we need to do to sell the idea of a balanced portfolio aligned with an innovation strategy and the metrics necessary to shape and monitor it. I’ll add that to the list for How To Farm Lightning: sustainable innovation 2009!

Announcing British Design Innovation's Innovation Filter

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:22:00 +0000

This is an interesting initiative from the British Design Innovation in the UK - “30 leading design and innovation professionals team up to provide Innovation Filter for entrepreneurs & originators”.

Assessing the viability of ideas is never easy requiring a mix of knowledge and skills that is hard to found in one place, let alone one person. By pulling together a panel of this size of industry experts the BDI should be able to add real value to the filtering process to the benefit of innovative individuals and smaller firms without the financial or other resources to do it alone.

Says, Maxine Horn, CEO, British Design Innovation, “Whilst we are in a culture of Open Innovation, the majority of Corporates cannot view a proposition that is not patent protected due to the threat that doing so might cause to their own IP position. Thereby Originators commit to the cost of patent applications with little knowledge of whether their proposition is viable, and thereby their Patent valuable”.

Observes, Joss Newberry, Innovation Director, Opius “there is a significant drop-out rate of patent applications prior to the granting of a full patent, whether UK, European or global. Financial issues may cause some applicants to drop out but the fundamental issue for patent applicants is translating the idea into a commercially interesting proposition in an often time sensitive environment. The challenges facing patent applicants could be risk reduced with the existence of an organization that can join the dots –BDI is unique in its capability to do this with the support of the UK’s leading product and service design development Directors”.

F1 & Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital collaboration re-visited...

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:03:00 +0000

Back in April I mentioned (courtesy of Nesta) in “Extreme collaboration: The Formula 1 Intensive Care Unit” how Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital in London had worked with Formula 1 teams “to halve the number of mistakes in the surgical and intensive care units through a collaborative project.”

So What?

With the withdrawal of Honda from F1 and predictions of the demise of F1 as we know it (90% salary cuts anyone?) then maybe it’s the time for the collaboration to be re-visited but with the roles reversed? What could Max Mosley of FIA and Bernie Ecclestone of F1 learn from Great Ormond Street to save their pampered baby? We all know collaboration is a two-way street so now the chips are down maybe its time for the favour to be repaid by the men in white coats?

McKinsey's Innovation Matters - show us where you see innovation

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:18:00 +0000

McKinsey is looking for your photos of local innovations to seed its innovation debate…...feel free to add a copy of anything you submit as a comment to this post.

"Our forthcoming publication What Matters is a collection of short essays by leading thinkers, scholars, and CEOs on big topics: climate change, globalization, health care, sustainability, the credit crisis, innovation, and more. In one of these, author and designer John Thackara writes, "If you want to find solutions that make a difference, the best place to look may be the community center down the street."

We agree that innovation is often best when it comes from small, widely distributed experiments. So we're inviting you to send us digital images of things that represent innovation in your part of the world. We will reproduce a broad sampling of these images in What Matters, as a photo-essay, and make them available online.

Please send your images to us at innovation_matters@mckinsey.com. Tell us what the innovation is in your photograph, and please limit the size of the image to 5 megabytes."

So what?

Its good to see McKinsey attempting to leverage the power of ‘the crowd’ and recognising that a picture is a great way to capture at least some types of innovation. One of the first challenges I often face in a company is to establish what innovation is actually going-on and this is not as straightforward asit may sound.

One techniqiue I have recently tried with success is to get employees across the orgnisation to submit photos and short (2 min) videos of product, service and especially process innovation (most have picture phones so this is not the challenge it used to be). This has proven a great way to get this process started and can reveal a lot of hidden innovation and a more innovative culture than leadership previously imagined.

Front End of Innovation Europe, Monaco 26-28 January 2009.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:38:00 +0000

View the complete "Front End of Innovation Europe 2009" programme pdf. Quote VIP Priority Code: TT25DISC15 for a 15% discount.

To Register, Call Terrence Johnson at +1 646.895.7425, Email: tjohnson@iirusa.com.

I hope to see you there!

Last fart of the ferret

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:40:00 +0000

I rather identify with this excerpt from The Economist’s skunk works Inside Project Red Stripe back in 2006, the story of which is now available online and as a book.

“Taiichi Ohno, father of the Toyota Production System and an inspiration to many Systems Thinkers. In an interview with an Economist journalist (and which I have never been able to trace), he reportedly likened creativity in a survival culture to the last fart of the ferret. When a ferret is cornered it emits a powerful stench like a skunk, and employees, he said, when facing closure of the company, would come up with some of their most creative ideas. [Incidentally, if you search for 'last fart of the ferret', Google will rather coyly ask you if you meant 'last fruit of the ferret' - a delightful possibility which, sadly, produces no results if you accept the suggestion.]”

I knew necessity was the mother of invention but not that a ferret's fart could save so many company's from closure, surely worth knowing in these stressed times?

The blog is well worth a read for the multitude of questions it poses and if anyone out there thinks corporate innovation does not need deep thought, careful attention and active management to make it happen then think again.

Can China innovate – you bet it can!

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:51:00 +0000

This article from Strategy & Business of Booz & Co. (“China’s Long Road to Innovation”) suggests that China will find it very hard to evolve from a global manufacturer to a global innovator.

“Ultimately, Du and other Chinese experts question whether Chinese enterprises and companies can ever innovate technologically. One issue is culture. In Western and Japanese companies, researchers are allowed to develop ideas rather than being told which ideas to pick, and they are allowed to fail. These conditions require a delicate balance between a company’s top management and its technical talent. But in Chinese companies, which tend to be very centralized, individual initiative and risk-taking are rarely rewarded. Chen also argues that Communist Party control of the economy is a disincentive for innovation. “The party wants all the good ideas to be its ideas,” he says.”

So What?

Is the Chinese problem deeply rooted or can at least private firms create the necessary space and culture to innovate as we do in the West? Or will Chinese firms find an alternative way to innovate that leverages their strengths and minimises their weaknesses, just as their Japanese and Korean neighbours appear to have done? Who says the Western approach to innovation is THE way rather than one of many, an approach adapted to the ego-centric culture of the West?

It is so easy to forget that many innovations we now take for granted originated from huge government initiated and funded post-war programs, from NASA moon landing and nuclear power to jet aircraft and telecoms. I for one will not dismiss the Chinese as destined to fail at innovation, especially in a world where original research is ever more scare and under-funded, no more so than in the USA.

China has formidable potential to innovate whole new industries just as the US has done before it. The problems stated in the article are only tactical and just as Chinese entrepreneurs now have the space to make money (unimagined 20 years ago) so Chinese researchers can have the envronment and motivation to innovate – and probably very quickly once the problem is fully recognised.

I would suggest the US and Europe should be seeking to re-invent themselves to compete rather than continuing to look at China through a lens that only distorts rather than reveals and assumes THEIR way is THE way.

Thames Valley Innovation Conference 2008, Reading, UK.

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:40:00 +0000

The third annual conference on innovation hosted by TVEP but the first for me. This one-day event (a part of the Thames Valley iFestival running until the end of November) had a distinctly technology-focused agenda, as is to be expected given the high-tech corporate inhabitants of the Thames Valley.

Unfortunately I missed the Keynote session but I learnt something from most of the sessions and stayed until the end, unlike most delegates. The exhibition was not great though Bemoko are worth a call if you want simple business apps delivered via mobiles. Apparently they had built a conference site for the hosts but it had not been promoted so a lost opportunity to demonstrate innovation there!

There was not a great deal of networking opportunities given the format of the event but it was good to chat with guest speakers from O2, (Dr Mike Short, VP of R&D), Microsoft (Andrew Watson, Senior Director) and Syngenta (DR Mike Bushell, Head of Site) about the challenges of global R&D, the mobile industry and open innovation.

Andrew Watson of Microsoft provided some insights as to how they encourage and channel innovation and besides an ideas exchange I was intrigued to hear of their “Think Week”. Once a year Bill Gates (I ugess not any more) and Steve Balmer dedicate a week to sifting through formal written submissions from any staff member with ideas they want to suggest. I guess the main aim is to by-pass potentially obstructive management whilst providing access to the leadership. Knowing a submission is going straight to the top apparently ensures there are few time-wasters and submissions are generally well conceived.

My attempts to unearth some best practice secrets as to how to manage a large distributed global R&D organisation drew a blank with wide scale agreement that it was indeed a challenge! Syngenta kept the model as simple as possible with only a handful of sites with each specialising in a research focus thus minimising required interaction between sites. Key start-up, knowledge transfer or other major activities were achieved via a dedicated expat, usually someone wishing to return home to the new site and therefore having a strong interest to make the project a success.

?WhatIF! were the star turn and Harry Hobson and Andy Reid did a great job in enlightening the crowd as to the value and need for creativity in the innovation process - and a few ways to help it along. ?WhatIf! work with Samsung, Nokia, Vodafone and other technology firms so I will be exploring via Harry how best to partner on farming innovation lightning.

The SME presentations were as enlightening as the corporates and especially Malcolm Duckett of Speed Trap (web site monitoring) and Alex Pratt of Serious Readers (specialist reading lights), both of which in their different ways demonstrated the need for tenacity and flexibility when pursuing ideas and overcoming inevitable setbacks.

If you are in the area I would recommend attending this event if it runs next year as planned but the organisers need to find better ways to network participants and develop a clearer focus for the programme presentations.

Conference site at http://www.theinnovationconference.net/.

Internet of Things, Internet of the Future- Nice 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:30:00 +0000

A little late I know but the Autumn conference season really does stretch my capacity. I could only attend the first day of this two day event in Nice in October but most of the presentations are available from the above title link.

So What?

I am not deep into RFID or related technologies but I guess I was a little surprised as to how slowly things are developing in the area given the bout of promise a few years ago. Not only are technologies fragmented but are a lot of legal and regulatory issues regarding confidentiality and privacy in a world rendered transparent by emerging tracking and identification technologies. This conference was as much about those as it was about technology in general or the future of the Internet in particular.

The usual challenges of developing accepted standards raises its head and its clear self-interest groups are still battling to get their way given the enormity of the opportunity in the long term. But will the vision of a truly connected world with more devices and objects than people connected to the internet come about? IPv6 may enable this but there a lot more issues to be addressed and from this conference it is clear that most have nothing to do with technology.

How long should tags on goods be active and how do we know they have been de-activated? Should the consumer have access to the data stored? Who does the data belong to and how is the data shared? The list is a long one so don’t expect to see the Internet being taken over by ‘things’ for a while yet and it may be that there will be many alternative networks vying for the right to host the connectivity of things.

An example of Living labs at Workspring by Steelcase

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:01:00 +0000

Springwise brought this Workspring Living Lab to my attention earlier this week. Based in Chicago, this commercially available meeting space will double as a lab to test new products from office furniture manufacturer Steelcase.

As Herman Miller made apparent with their ground-breaking Aeron ergonomic chair back in the early 90’s, there is much more to an office chair than keeping your bum off of the floor, as my bum will gladly testify.

So What?

Wikipedia defines a Living Lab as a “….new research paradigm integrating both a user centred multidisciplinary research approach and a user community driven innovation based on real life experiments.”

Living Labs first arose in the Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) space and are particularly strong in Europe where the EU is promoting via several initiatives and a map of them is avalable at OpenLivingLabs.

In essence they are a half-way house for innovations that are ready to escape the laboratory but are not yet sufficiently developed to survive in the real world. A Living Lab is a place where innovations can be monitored and evaluated in a realistic but controilled environment whilst being used by end users. The observaions and feedback generated can then be used to adpat and further develop the innovaion as well as maybe better positioning the innovaion in the marketplace.

Living Labs are another step in the evolution of innovation as it migrates from a closed and R&D dominated focus to a more open and connected paradigm more closely focused on satisfying real needs and attuned to real users from day one. They are another way to engage users and customers earlier in the innovation process and this is very important for the increasingly complex products and services that require a high level of user acceptance in order to succeed, such as mobile data services.

Maybe office furniture does not immediately fall into this category and this Steelcase initiative is more about marketing than innovation (or innovation in marketing?) but either way we are going to see more of these "middle-space" or "bridging" initiatives both within and outside of ICT.

Nokia and Open Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:40:00 +0000

Open innovation and Nokia Philosophy, Dr. Bob Iannucci, CTO of Nokia and Head of Nokia Research Center. from DevilsRejection on Vimeo.

This is a great introduction to Open Innovation. Though presented from the context of Nokia it is very relevant to a much wider audience and especially the ICT universe.

FYI, Bob is no longer CTO at Nokia though still works in an advisory role.

42 minutes, recorded in Espoo, Finland earlier this year.

Innova Lyon 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:14:00 +0000

Unfortunately I could not accept the kind invitation of the French EU Presidency to attend Innova in Lyon last month.

The Innova conference website now contains most of the presentations and a quick scan does not reveal much new, as is mostly the case at these “acado-governmental” gigs; the innovation is elsewhere and closer to the edge.

Eric Von Hippel was there and his presentation is worth a scan if you are not familiar with the work or want an update from of the father of ‘user-led’ innovation theory.

So What?

One buried gem I did enjoy is Gary Waterworth Owen’s of the Centre for Sustainable Design in the UK and his presentation on Lifecycle thinking. This is something close to my heart and the sustainable innovation focus on which How To Farm Lightning is trying to build.

In his presentation Gary notes that there are 4400 US patents for mousetraps, less than 20 have made money but there are still 400 new patent applications per year. This is in stark contrast to the untapped opportunities the world presents for innovation given our preoccupation with the front-end of the product life-cycle and almost total neglect of the back-end. This results in huge waste, inefficiency and pollution and also raises deeper questions as to our values and the way we choose to live.

Innovating in a recession....

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 12:20:00 +0000

I posted a comment on this NESTA post on innovating in a recession. Here is the concluding advice and the full comment can be seen at http://blogs.nesta.org.uk/connect/2008/10/is-a-recession.html?cid=136170255#comment-136170255

"So, my advice is:

1.Spend more time with your existing customer’s and get to know how they are impacted by the downturn and current plans to deal with it - look for new insights.

2.Use these insights to identify new ways to help them beyond current offerings and lower prices and explore areas that they may have previously rejected but may now be open to.

3. Re-visit your strategy and re-orient it towards the new market conditions – success will go to the agile and the courageous and this may be a better time to change direction than you think."

Brendan at www.HowToFarmLightning.com

Posted by: Brendan 24 Oct 2008 11:24:28

Free H2FL Workshop - November 18th, London....

noreply@blogger.com (Brendan Dunphy) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:44:00 +0000

I and colleague Paul May will be hosting a free and informal H2FL workshop at NESTA in London on Tuesday November 18th.

We will use the ocassion to test a few ideas and components for the 2009 programme with a small group of associates and hopefully a few new faces as well. If you would like to be one of the lucky 'new faces' then drop me an email with your profile and why you would like to attend to info@HowToFarmLightning.com.

The workshop will run from 10.00 to around mid-afternoon and is kindly hosted by NESTA at their facility in central London.

I and H2FL co-host Paul May hope to see some of you there!