For those of you who are based in the Chicago area, this could be something of interest ..... The site describes the goal of the award is to :
" . . . recognize, educate and inspire. Entering its sixth year, the awards honor Chicago-area businesses and nonprofit organizations that develop the year’s most innovative new products and services."
For more information ... follow the link below ...
Thanks Nick for the lead on this .....
When we run the "Idea lab" and the "Opportunity Clinic" sessions, we take advantage of the brain's inherent properties of "pattern formation" and pattern recognition". As a starting point, we focus on the 9 possible area(s) of unknowns (potentially ranging from ambiguity to complexity and uncertainty) taking you from a stage of confusion and chaos to insight and clarity.
The New York Times today supports this tactic, stating the following:
"Habits are a funny thing. We reach for them mindlessly, setting our brains on auto-pilot and relaxing into the unconscious comfort of familiar routine. "Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd," William Wordsworth said in the 19th century."
"Brain researchers have discovered that when we consciously develop new habits, we create parallel synaptic paths, and even entirely new brain cells, that can jump our trains of thought onto new, innovative tracks."
"Rather than dismissing ourselves as unchangeable creatures of habit, we can instead direct our own change by consciously developing new habits. In fact, the more new things we try - the more we step outside our comfort zone - the more inherently creative we become, both in the workplace and in our personal lives. But don't bother trying to kill off old habits; once those ruts of procedure are worn into the hippocampus, they're there to stay. Instead, the new habits we deliberately ingrain into ourselves create parallel pathways that can bypass those old roads."
"The first thing needed for innovation is a fascination with wonder," ...[...]... But we are taught instead to 'decide...[...]... however, "to decide is to kill off all possibilities but one. A good innovational thinker is always exploring the many other possibilities."
All of us work through problems in ways of which we're unaware. Researchers in the late 1960s discovered that humans are born with the capacity to approach challenges in four primary ways: analytically, procedurally, relationally (or collaboratively) and innovatively...[...]...However, the brain shuts down half of that capacity, preserving only those modes of thought that have seemed most valuable during the first decade or so of life."
The current emphasis on standardized testing highlights analysis and procedure, meaning that few of us inherently use our innovative and collaborative modes of thought. "This breaks the major rule in the American belief system - that anyone can do anything," ..[..].. "That's a lie that we have perpetuated, and it fosters mediocrity. Knowing what you're good at and doing even more of it creates excellence."
This is where developing new habits comes in. If you're an analytical or procedural thinker, you learn in different ways than someone who is inherently innovative or collaborative. Figure out what has worked for you when you've learned in the past, and you can draw your own map for developing additional skills and behaviors for the future.
The NYT also warns:
Simultaneously, take a look at how colleagues approach challenges...[...]... We tend to believe that those who think the way we do are smarter than those who don't. That can be fatal in business, particularly for executives who surround themselves with like-thinkers. If seniority and promotion are based on similarity to those at the top, chances are strong that the company lacks intellectual diversity.
[N.B.....that's why we employ various learning style and thinking style instruments in the Idea Lab--Walter Derzko]
Finally, it concludes:
"You cannot have innovation, unless you are willing and able to move through the unknown (confusion stage) and go from curiosity to wonder."
Related Post: Culture influences brain function 08-012
Some of the best minds in technology gathered for The Churchill Club's annual dinner. Eric Savitz of Barron's covered the event in detail. VentureBeat also has a nice summary including audience votes on the trends.
The highlights, excerpted from Eric Savitz article, were;
I have seen so many companies, literally hundreds, that are building social, fun, aggregators, filters, recommendations, communities, and services that all boil down to one thing...building profiles from implicit data and explicit actions to better target advertising. It is the biggest "head fake" in business history. All these widgets and services appear to be fun consumer toys, but underneath they are advertising driven data collectors. BTW, "head fake" is a basketball sports term for faking with a head movement that you are going one way and then quickly going the other way.
This prediction was made by Roger McNamee who has a major investment in Palm, so he is definitely putting his money where his mouth is. I totally agree with Roger, in fact I made the same prediction yesterday on a Massachusetts Technology Leadership Council’s talk show hosted by James Geshwiler. In January of 2007 I called it the Triple Play for The Next Big Thing; Local Search, Voice enabled, with Location Based Services, on a Mobile Phone. There are more cell phones than desktop computers in the world today. Cell phones have been called the 'Third Screen", but they are quickly becoming the first screen for the younger generation.
I agree water already is a big priority in some parts of the world. At the NVCA conference last week one panel member said that 90% of the water we use in the USA is used for agriculture and irrigation. That is an astounding truth. We only drink something like 4% of all the water we produce. The rest is used for washing, flushing toilets, and irrigation. Dean Kamen has done some amazing work in the area of low cost water purification systems.
Vinod Khosla made this prediction. I hope he is right but I have a hard time believing this. There have been numerous stories written on this subject that suggest it takes more energy to produce a gallon of biofuel than it is worth. Perhaps these articles are part of the "99% of the discussion is irrelevent" that Vinod was talking about. Wind, Solar, and Mini-Hydro are proven sources of clean renewable energy where the technology and economics are viable at current energy prices. Green energy is certainly a hot area for investment and innovation. The question is can startups play a role here or will it be dominated by the big energy companies and utilities.
Read the complete list of top trends at Barron's Tech Trader Daily by Eric Savitz.
Subscribe - To get an automatic feed of all future posts subscribe here, or to receive them via email go here and enter your email address in the box in the right column.
I thought I’d write a short post providing some immediate reflections from an interesting panel discussion I facilitated today.
The panel, titled “Innovation: Change Happens,” featured Dow Corning Chairman, CEO and President Stephanie Burns, Eastman Kodak President and COO Phil Faraci, and Procter & Gamble Chairman and CEO A.G. Lafley. It was part of the Newspaper Association of America and American Society of News Editors “Capital Conference 2008.”
Each of the panelists provided a short account of their respective company’s change efforts and answered audience questions. The six key points that seemed to be in common across the three companies were:
Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights
Tags: stephanie burns eastman kodak harvard management audience questions procter amp gamble dow corning burning platform newspaper association of america news editors lafley chairman ceo faraci change efforts hellip critical importance clear vision skeptics panelists panel discussion respective company
The Fortune 500 issue had a fascinating story about Amazon.com. “It’s easy to believe that Jeff Bezos is one of the great innovators,” the story noted. “But that’s not exactly the case. His rise into Fortune 500-dom actually has little to do with innovation and more to do with iteration.”
It pains me when I see innovation and iteration painted as opposed in some way. In fact, the only way to successfully innovate is to be prepared to iterate like crazy.
There is a misbegotten belief that new growth businesses arise fully formed out of an innovator’s head. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Carefully look at the history of just about any innovation success and you’ll find a course correction, if not an outright failure.
There are many classic examples of innovation through iteration. Google was just another search engine until it iterated its way to AdWords and AdSense. About three months before the public launch of the iPhone, Apple CEO Steve Jobs sent the design team back to the drawing board because of flaws in the product’s design. James Dyson created more than 5,000 failed prototypes of his wildly successful vacuum cleaner. And so on. ...
Read the rest at Scott's Harvard Management blog, Innovation Insights
I was wandering around in a client's office recently and was simply overwhelmed by the number of people who were "hot desking" on one floor. That is, most of these people have no permanent home in the office, they simply come in and pick up any materials and go to the first open desk. Many actually work from home and come in for meetings or other events. They all had access to a PC, a computer monitor and about three feet of desk space, but the partitions were only about 3 feet high and there were people on the left and the right within three or four feet. Conversations on the phone had to be taken in other areas since the people were so close together.
I recognize that flexible design and smart allocation of floor space is all the rage. Permanent offices gave way to cubicles, which are now giving way to working from home or hot desking. However, these trends don't portend well for knowledge workers. I think in many cases these office situations create difficulties in working together and in coherent organized thought.
Right now I am writing this is a hotel room and can clearly hear the conversation in the next room. It is hard to keep a clear train of thought even though the voices are muffled. In many offices, including my own, people who work in cubicles wear headphones to listen to music or simply block out the surrounding noise. There are two issues with this - cubicles and hot desks were supposed to make the "free flow" of information and communication easier. Since so much of our work is caught up in communication, many of us have to actively block out all the conversation around us. And, as we block it out, we become less aware to what's going on. Additionally, if you want to have a private conversation, you almost have to go outside or in the hallway to speak to someone without everyone else overhearing your call, so this just distracts individuals from work.
We often ask people for their best thoughts and best thinking, yet we place them in work situations - cubes, hot desks and conference rooms - that are not meant to promote good thinking. Cubes and hot desks were developed more for space planning and flexibility, not for quiet contemplation or thinking. Conference rooms, however, probably belong in one of Dante's levels of hell. Who can get anything done in most conference rooms? Too often they are too small, too poorly lit and nothing seems to work in any of the conference rooms I've been in. Going into some conference rooms is almost like entering a jail cell.
Next, consider the decoration and personalization of the office space. In one client's space I was in recently, the client noted that individuals had two choices about their cubes - whether or not to have a specific shelf or a coat hook. Everything else was defined in advance. Everything was dull gray, every cube like every other cube. A vista of sameness distinguished only by random shelves or coat hooks. The wall are beige or grey, with drop ceiling tiles. Little natural light. Must escape dullness ....
As managers we ask people to commit a significant portion of their time and their thinking to the benefit of our firms, yet we stick them in work situations and environments that are more attuned to prison cells that creative workspaces that inspire new thinking. I saw a great ad by HSBC that asks - if we all think alike, how will anything ever change? I guess the concept in workspace planning is - if we all work in exactly the same dull workspace, we won't risk creativity or new ideas.
Would it hurt to give people who need to think and create the ability to design their workspace? How about a little color on the walls? Or a quiet place to ponder and generate ideas that isn't like solitary confinement? Instead of overcoming our work environments, they should be places that draw us in and stimulate our thinking.
Sometimes taking risks means risking both.
So where are our national policy makers? Where are the Bell Labs, Xerox Research Parks, Ford Test Tracks, Strategic Defense Initiatives and NASAs of education? Why is America so slow to arrive at the inevitable conclusion that schools are a national security priority -- and that federal funding of R&D investment in them would serve as, shall we say, Homeland Offense?
Tags: national political leadership us education system chris whittle defense initiatives innovation theory edison schools disruptive innovation educational innovation wall street journal inevitable conclusion fragmented industry educational structure american settlement s education mainstream markets nasas strategic defense educational reform educational experience secondary education
Tags: innovation capability senior management team innovation capabilities innovation initiative innovation team drew boyd innovation programs innovation leader sustainable innovation part timers employment pages organization culture team mate academic research eloquence time basis soapbox sidekick team leader academics
“It takes a big idea to attract the attention of consumers and get them to buy your product,” wrote Ogilvy. “Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night. I doubt if more than one campaign in a hundred contains a big idea.” Ogilvy was an advertising executive who praised the virtues of creativity; if an ad didn’t sell, it was because it wasn’t creative. His years of experience taught him that people were not going to buy a product if the ad was boring; only interest and curiosity would entice people to buy.
Ogilvy became the most sought-after advertising man because he understood precisely what it was that made an ad appealing. Take, for instance, his now famous campaign for Hathaway, a Maine-based shirt manufacturer. Ogilvy created a man with an eye patch, who appeared to be a sophisticated eccentric. The eye patch came to be the man’s signature garment, even though it was the Hathaway shirt he was meant to be selling. In the end, the character had become such an icon that Hathaway ads could be run without even mentioning the brand’s name and the company’s revenues tripled within just a few years.
In addition to having a creative idea, Ogilvy believed that “the most important decision is how to position your product.” His campaign for Dove soap, which he positioned with the phrase “one-quarter cleansing cream”, became one of the most successful and enduring ads of his career. However, Ogilvy also understood that positioning meant little if the rest of the ad was a flop. “A lot of today's campaigns are based on optimum positioning but are totally ineffective - because they are dull, or badly constructed, or ineptly written,” said Ogilvy. “If nobody reads your advertisement or looks at your commercial, it doesn't do you much good to have the right positioning.”
While Ogilvy didn’t believe that such “aesthetic intangibles” as “balance” and “movement” of an ad had an impact on its effectiveness, he did have certain creative techniques to make an ad more visually appealing. For instance, Ogilvy would often make the logo twice the size – “a good thing to do because most advertisements are deficient in brand identification.” On the other hand, he never made headlines too big to be legible in magazines or newspapers. He would also show his client’s faces “because the public is more interested in personalities than in corporations.”
Other Ogilvy techniques included studying and imitating graphics used by editors, since “it has been found that the less an advertisement looks like an advertisement, and the more it looks like an editorial, the more readers stop, look and read.” He would place photographs at the top of his ads, given that “people have a habit of scanning downwards,” and also learned that there is little value in saying something without illustrating it because “the viewer immediately forgets it.”
Ogilvy believed in making an ad creative, yet always in good taste. “There are very few products which do not benefit from being given a first class ticket through life,” he once said. Not everyone was going to agree with his strategies, but Ogilvy believed that “if you are too thin-skinned to survive this hazard, you should not become an account executive in an advertising agency.”
Sponsored By: Brand Aid
While rummaging through some marketing books for a research project, I dug up this tasty quote for us marketers...
John McKenna at the Leadership Epidemic blog has posed a question and asked for responses from a number of bloggers. His main thesis is that most leadership sucks. I guess I'll have to differ with him in this case, since I find little indication of leadership in most of the firms I work in.
It will help to start by defining our terms. To me, leadership is defined by the ability to create a vision that stretches your team's or organization's ability, and demands more than exists today. A good leader helps others overcome their uncertainty and fears. A good leader identifies the best traits in each of us and attempts to capitalize on those traits. A good leader is understands the possibilities in his or her vision and works hard to achieve those for himself, his company, his country, and so forth.
Now, in that context, there are few true leaders in most businesses, since it is impossible to pursue more than a handful of "visions" or strategies in any business without complete chaos. Most senior executives in businesses are "managers" - that is, they understand the vision and attempt to implement it to the best of their understanding. They don't create the vision, and in most cases don't fully back it or understand it, but are doing their best to implement the vision. In any context, in any organization, there can be a maximum of one leader in this regard, however, in most firms there aren't any real leaders. Most CEOs are pragmatists, guided by Wall Street and expected earning and returns. Some leaders, like Jack Welch for instance, became recognized because he had a vision and pleased the street. Some leaders, like Steve Jobs, have been recognized for their vision but have had up and down experiences - most likely because they could not communicate their vision effectively to a solid management team below them. In many other firms, however, it is difficult to identify who is responsible for creating a vision and encouraging people to follow his or her vision. I'm working right now in a Fortune 500 company where no one can even tell me what the 3 to 5 year strategic plan is.
We've managed to dumb down a lot of leadership as well, by increasing focus on process excellence and Six Sigma. These tools aren't wrong, they just create such a micro-focus that eventually no one in the organization is looking beyond the next Type 1 or Type 2 issue. I like to say that we have plenty of 90 day leaders, but few 3 year leaders - if by these designations we mean their focus and scope of influence. Now that many firms have optimized their costs, they need to turn their attention to the bigger challenges of growth and differentiation, which requires leadership and risk.
Within a function or team, anyone can be a leader. I've worked for charismatic types who understood leadership beyond mere platitudes. Many of the best leaders I've worked with and for came from military backgrounds. What's established in the military is the importance of the team and individual, and officers in the military understand that they come last - the team comes first. Many of these leaders demonstrate that leadership by determining a plan and helping the rest of the team understand the plan and their place in it. These leaders seek the best from their team, build camaraderie and demonstrate leadership by taking the toughest roles and not asking anyone to do something they wouldn't do.
Leadership doesn't suck in most organizations. It is not apparent in most organizations or is stifled by the short term expectations of investors, which creates a quarterly driven mentality. The best place today to find true leaders in businesses is in smaller, private firms. Also, the military does an excellent job of producing individuals who are capable of great leadership, but the military as well is awfully sensitive to public pressure, the media and so forth, so many of the leaders are tamped down to align to political and public sensitivities.
We've spent the past few months exploring the sixteen things that you must do to create a winning brand.
You can find a summary of each here. Let's take another look...
1. Brands are personifications of organizations, products, services and experiences and they are the source of relationships.
2. Top management support is crucial to a brand’s success.
3. A brand’s identity must be frequently and consistently presented.
4. Profound customer knowledge is essential to building winning brands.
5. The brand and its products and services must exceed customer expectations.
6. Brand building begins with awareness.
7. Relevant differentiation drives customer brand insistence.
8. A brand should strive to evoke emotions and create sensory experiences.
9. A brand should exhibit admirable human qualities.
10. A brand must stand for something.
11. Constant product and service innovation build strong brands.
12. A brand should strive to create a sense of community.
13. The corporate culture must reinforce the brand essence, promise and personality.
14. Internal brand building is essential to external brand building.
15. Front line employees are key to a brand’s success.
16. Co-creating a brand with its customers will help the brand continue to thrive.
If you implement each of these 16 concepts in your organization, I guarantee you that your brand will win in its marketplace.
You will know that your brand is winning in the marketplace when…
• The brand is mentioned to customers and potential customers, and they brim with enthusiasm in their response.
• Your brand’s external messages “ring true” with all employees.
• Employees are enthusiastic and consistent in recounting what makes their brand special.
• The brand’s market share is increasing.
• Competitors always mention your brand as a point of reference.
• The press can’t seem to write enough about your brand.
• Your CEO has a strong vision for the organization and its brand.
He or she talks more about the vision than financial targets.
• Your organization’s leaders always seem to “talk the brand” and “walk the brand talk.”
Now you know the 16 most important things that you must do to create winning brands. May you unleash your brand’s power and transform your organization through branding.
Sponsored By: Brand Aid
Matthew Traum of Design News has an interesting article on how the virtual world of Second Life may dramatically impact new product development and engineering design. Excerpts: “First there was the drafting table and the pencil. Then there was 2-D CAD; next came 3-D drafting utilities like SolidWorks and ProEngineer. Now, San Francisco-based Linden Lab has evolved computer-aided design to its next plateau, offering free access to a computer-generated alternative universe called Second Life (SL) where users can build anything. Ironically, the SL developers did not intend to design a solid modeling tool. SL was just another massive multiplayer online experience until users spontaneously began utilizing it for engineering design.
“It as serious development tool,” says Assistant Professor Chang Liu (a.k.a. Chang Tuxing in SL) of the Virtual Immersive Technologies and Arts for Learning (VITAL) Lab. at Ohio University. “Second Life is just emerging into the mainstream and a lot of engineers are not there yet,” says Pam Broviak, PE, (a.k.a. Pam Renoir in SL) public works director and city engineer for La Salle, IL. “When I show engineers Second Life, their initial reaction is ‘it is just a game’ because it looks like a game. They have to get beyond that.”…..
Using her SL identity, “Pam Renoir,” Broviak manages the Second Life Public Works Resource Center, one of the first destinations in the metaverse focused on applying SL to real-world engineering. The Center serves as a clearing house for information related to engineering and public works in SL. Broviak has also been using SL in her engineering practice to design plumbing systems. …..Unlike real world piping, Broviak’s plumbing system now exists in cyber space, where it can be used as a kind of 3-D wiki. Engineers, plumbers and homeowners can use Broviak’s design as a template, modifying it for their own applications. Broviak imagines that eventually an entire 3-D library of plumbing solutions could be accessible to engineers visiting Second Life….. “What takes it further than conventional 3-D drafting tools is the level of interaction,” Broviak says. “Once you build something, you can pick it up or walk through it; its immersive, like the object is really there. You can’t do that with CAD.”
Ohio University has used SL to create a complete virtual engineering college, including a building slated for future construction. At this SL campus, engineering and computer science courses are taught in parallel with real-world counterparts. “One of our buildings won’t exist for another year, but my students already had a class in it,” Liu says. “First we tried to replicate buildings exactly, but then we learned it was better to modify them from the original to make them more functional in Second Life.”
For now, Broviak and Liu are engineering pioneers within SL; among the first to embrace this immersive alternate reality as a serious tool for real-world engineering design. Nonetheless, they share a vision for how SL may soon be used once its capabilities and scope are discovered and exploited by engineers.
“I see Second Life being used as the first step in the planning process for many future engineering design projects,” Broviak says. “Building something in there does not take a lot of time. Companies will soon discover that much of their initial design work can be accomplished in-world where everyone has a chance to use it and comment on it before anything is actually built.”
Broviak also foresees manufacturers and suppliers setting up virtual storefronts in SL where engineers can browse and specify parts for their projects. Potential buyers will interact with 3-D computer-generated components instead of thumbing through a 2-D catalogue or Web browser. Companies could even build large versions of their products embedded with interactive scripts to enable customers to walk through and see how the internal components function. Liu sees SL as a pathway to reduce production cycle time and increase user input earlier in the development process.
“Normally what designers are doing is not accessible to users,” he says. “But, Second Life is different in the sense that products are built in-world, which totally changes the dynamic. Creation is no longer the work of a developer.”
Link to full article: http://www.designnews.com/index.asp?layout=article...
A nationwide poll of registered voters reveals that Americans are deeply concerned that the United States is not preparing young people with the skills they need to compete in the global economy. An overwhelming 80 percent of voters say that the kind of skills students need to learn to be prepared for the jobs of the 21st century is different from what they needed 20 years ago. Yet 60 percent say that schools have done only a fair or poor job keeping up with changing educational needs.
The national poll was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies and Peter D. Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Partnership for 21st Century Skills. Among the other key findings:
• Eighty-eight percent of voters say they believe that schools can and should incorporate 21st century skills such as including critical thinking and problem-solving skills, computer and technology skills, and communication and self-direction skills into their curriculum.
• Sixty-six percent of voters say they believe that students need more than just the basics of reading, writing and math; schools also need to incorporate a broader range of skills.
• Fifty-three percent say they believe schools should place an equal emphasis on 21st century skills and basic skills.
“The loud and clear message from this poll is that Americans recognize the need for our schools to help our students get back ahead of the curve in quickly changing world,” said Geoffrey Garin, Peter D. Hart Research Associates. “Right now, far more Americans view us as falling behind other countries in this regard than see us as taking the lead.”
“We now know that employers and the public are united in their understanding of what it takes to compete today,” said Partnership President Ken Kay. “These results provide education leaders and policymakers the tremendous opportunity to make our education system more aligned with the needs of the 21st century workforce. The public strongly supports more rigorous expectations for students that integrate 21st century skills into core academic subjects.”
“The industrial model of education is glaringly inadequate for the 21st century innovation economy. We cannot compete with a narrow scope of disciplinary skills. The education system should give more emphasis to problem solving, systems thinking, interactive learning, integrating multiple disciplines, self direction, learn-to-learn skills, integrity and ethics,” comments Egils Milbergs, president, Center for Accelerating Innovation. He noted that “immersive virtual environments such as Second Life hold great potential to dramatically expand student competencies and learning beyond the typical classroom."
Visit the Partnership for 21st Century Skill’s website for more information on the poll and 21st century skills, www.21stcenturyskills.org . Read a summary of the poll results www.21stcenturyskills.org/documents/oct._10_launch_slides.ppt
I recently had a chance to catch up with BusinessWeek's Bruce Nussbaum who was a good enough sport to go ahead and share a his "innovation gym" story with us on video. What I like about Bruce is that he's not afraid to stir up the pot. Apparently, he caused a bit a scene at BusinessWeek by taking down photos of CEO's in order to put up imagery that would stimulate his staff as they worked on the inaugural issue of INside Innovation.
The video clip is only two minutes long and I suggest you watch it. Bruce obviously peppers in a bit of humor as he reflects upon his experience trying to create his own version of innovation INside the historic walls of the McGraw Hill building—but I'll bet you one thing. I bet you have a story just like this. Maybe even a couple. If that's the case—you're doing something right.
The UK government will invest £1bn in business innovation and technology development over the next three years through the newly established technology strategy board (TSB). The strategy is aimed at positioning Britain as a key knowledge economy at the forefront of 21st century innovation and is based on a report by Lord Sainsbury of Turville entitled “The Race to the Top” (published October 5). The report states that the best way for the UK to compete in this age of globalization, is to move into high-value goods and services, for which an efficient and effective science and innovation ecosystem is vital.
Originally commissioned by Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review, the review was directed to look at the role that science and innovation can play in enabling the country to compete against low-wage, emerging economies such as China and India. The report revealed that while the UK’s record of innovation is better than is commonly supposed, the UK has not yet produced the best possible conditions to stimulate innovation in industry. Company strategies based solely on low costs will end in a downward spiral, each year bringing a new low-cost competitor. As Lord Sainsbury's review points out, global competition shouldn't be a 'race to the bottom', to see who can produce things the cheapest. It should be a 'race to the top', where we draw in the best and brightest researchers to help tap into new, high-value markets, based on our talent, infrastructure and innovation."
The announcement comes as the TSB announced 75 new collaborative R&D projects worth £42 million. Businesses were invited to bid for the funding last year in areas of innovation such as bioscience, healthcare, energy efficiency and low carbon technologies.
Key recommendations were the development of a national "proof-of-concept fund" and more flexible 'knowledge transfer programs' (KTPs) to help firms to gain funding and personnel as they grow. In addition, Lord Sainsbury recommended that the Small Business Research Innovation (SBRI) scheme should be reformed to adopt the principles used by the US's successful Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) scheme. The report also called for increasing international collaborations to help attract researchers from abroad and link British researchers with the best and brightest researchers globally and expand links with leading scientific nations. The report highlights the importance of a skilled workforce, claiming that training is a key part of any innovation 'ecosystem' and should be a key priority for policy-makers. Proposals to improve the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects were also highlighted in the review, as well as new measures to improve collaboration between academia and industry.
Further information about the Sainsbury Review can be found on the Treasury website
LINK: PDF file of The Race to the Top: A Review of Government’s Science and Innovation Policies (798KB)
The German World War II general Erich von Manstein is said to have categorized his officers into four types.
The first type, he said, is lazy and stupid. His advice was to leave them alone because they don’t do any harm.
The second type is hard-working and clever. He said that they make great officers because they ensure everything runs smoothly.
The third group is composed of hardworking idiots. Von Manstein said that you must immediately get rid of these, as they force everyone around them to perform pointless tasks.
The fourth category are officers who are lazy and clever. These, he says, should be your generals.
Discovering this information set me to wondering how General von Manstein’s categories might apply to business organizations today.
Most organizations have some managers within them who are lazy and stupid—at least, t
