Technology & Innovation

Innovation reinvented

January 24, 2007

Global

January 24, 2007

Global
Our Editors

The Economist Intelligence Unit

_____________________

A more open approach

Innovation reinvented: A more open approach incorporates case studies of the 47 companies selected as Technology Pioneers in biotechnology, energy/environmental technology, and information technology.

It had a good run, and it changed the world. But the old model of innovation that worked so well during the 20th century — pioneered in the late nineteenth century by Thomas Edison, whose New Jersey laboratory complex churned out inventions, turned them into marketable products and manufactured them for sale — has run out of steam. Global competition means that large firms can no longer assume that all the expertise they need is available within their own walls, or even within their own countries. They cannot always exploit new innovations effectively, or fast enough to beat their competitors to market. And the blue-sky ideas generated in the laboratory do not always correspond to what customers actually need.

So how are innovators, companies, research organisations and financiers responding? By innovating, of course — but this time around the process of innovation itself. The emerging model for the 21st century turns the 20th-century model on its head. The old closed and vertically integrated approach, in which intellectual property was generated in-house and was jealously guarded before being turned into new products, is giving way to a more open and flexible approach. This new model is based upon an ecosystem in which organisations, each with different skills, collaborate to co-develop new products and services. Such collaborations are known as innovation networks, and the new model is called "network innovation" or "open innovation".

Innovation networks overcome the drawbacks of the old vertically integrated approach by co-ordinating the actions of different players, allowing them to focus on what they do best. Navi Radjou, an analyst at Forrester Research and one of the leading proponents of the idea of innovation networks, divides the actors involved into four categories: Inventors, Transformers, Financiers and Brokers.

Inventors conduct fundamental research and development, and produce new intellectual property. Examples include academic institutions, research arms of large corporations, consultancies, research institutes, design shops and start-ups. These are the fundamental sources of new innovations, but they are not always in the best position to exploit the intellectual property that they create. Researchers at Xerox Parc, for example, famously devised many of the key innovations behind today's personal computers, but the organisation was unable to benefit from their ideas.

Transformers take the novel ideas produced by Inventors and transform, package or combine them so that they become useful innovations. Examples of Transformers include consultancies and systems integrators, start-ups founded to exploit specific innovations, and large firms that concentrate on production and marketing, rather than in cutting-edge innovation. Dell, for example, does not innovate in PC technology itself, but packages together innovations from various component-makers and delivers them to customers as a working computer.

Financiers provide funding, particularly for Inventors and startup Transformers; such funding can take the form of internal funding for corporate research, or external funding from venture-capital firms and other investors. Finally, Brokers connect these actors together. This can be done by specialist firms that provide matchmaking services between Inventors and Transformers, or by specific units within companies that match innovation needs with ideas from internal and external sources. Procter & Gamble, for example, does this using an internal portal called InnovationNet, while BT has established "innovation scouting teams" in the Far East, India, Israel and the US to act as innovation Brokers, sourcing promising ideas from local universities and start-ups.

Wearing many hats

In many cases an individual firm or institution may play more than one of these roles, as the old "own and protect" mentality towards intellectual property gives way to a new "share and expand" model in which the doors of the research laboratory are thrown open, rather than being kept tightly locked. The traditional vertical-innovation model can in fact be regarded as a closed, internal innovation network in which a single organisation does its best to play all four roles, financing its own innovations, acting as a broker between blue-sky researchers and customer-facing product-development teams, and then transforming innovations into new products and services.

Establishing an open innovation network with links to external actors has several benefits over the old model. It allows companies to combine internal and external sources of new ideas: why reinvent the wheel if you can license an existing technology? Ford, for example, decided to license hybrid-engine technology from rival carmaker Honda, rather than spend years developing its own. Network innovation also enables companies to convert innovations into useful products more efficiently in conjunction with partners, and license non-core intellectual property to others who can make better use of it. The new model also encourages greater risk-taking, as companies mitigate the risk of speculative ventures through partnerships or spin-outs. Some firms are even integrating customers into their innovation networks to ensure that the products they develop meet their needs. IBM's "First of a Kind" programme, for example, allows forward-thinking customers to act as Inventors and Financiers alongside IBM in the development of new software. Once it is completed, the software is then offered to other IBM customers.

Much of the enthusiasm for innovation networks comes from large companies, which are interested in becoming more agile and responsive — more like start-ups, in other words. But that does not mean that the approach is only attractive to big firms. Start-ups can and do play a valuable role in innovation networks, in two primary ways. First, by plugging into a big company's innovation network, start-ups can take advantage of the larger firm's production and marketing muscle to get products to market more quickly and gain access to customers more easily. Second, big companies that develop non-core intellectual property can exploit it by licensing it to a start-up, or by spinning off a start-up of their own.

So how does all this work in practice? The following examples, drawn from this year's list of Technology Pioneers, provide some real-world illustrations of how innovation networks function, how both start-ups and established firms are taking advantage of them, and how different industries are applying the idea of network innovation in different ways.

Prescription for change

Nowhere are the limits of the old vertically integrated innovation model more apparent than in the pharmaceuticals industry, where it takes 12 years and around $800m to take each new drug from the laboratory to the marketplace. After a series of huge mergers, pharmaceuticals firms have found that the process of developing new drugs does not scale up: a small number of large pharmaceutical companies turns out to be less innovative when it comes to devising new drugs than a larger number of small ones. So they are increasingly looking beyond their own walls for new drug leads and new drug-discovery platforms, by linking up with biotech firms. For their part, small biotech firms may lack the infrastructure to conduct clinical trials, deal with regulators, or handle large-scale manufacturing, marketing and distribution of new treatments. So the logic of collaborating with an established giant is clear. Both kinds of collaboration enable large firms, small start-ups and their associated investors to mitigate risks and share rewards.

454 Life Sciences Corporation, for example, based in Branford, Connecticut, has developed a new, highly efficient method to sequence DNA. Fragments of single-stranded DNA are attached to tiny beads and deposited into tiny wells on a chip. Nucleotides, the letters of the DNA alphabet, are then repeatedly washed across the chip to rebuild the missing second strand of each DNA fragment. When a nucleotide sticks on to a fragment, a reaction produces a small amount of light. It is thus possible to determine the wells in which a particular letter has stuck during each step, and hence the sequence of the DNA in each well. 454's mission is to enable routine sequencing of human DNA, in preparation for an era of "personalised medicine" in which each patient's genome is analysed to determine susceptibility to disease and the most suitable treatments.

The company was established in 2000 as a subsidiary of CuraGen, a biopharmaceutical firm. It has a five-year sales distribution deal with Roche Diagnostics, which is funding further development of the technology and will market it to drugs companies for use in drug discovery. 454 is, in short, at the centre of an innovation network: it acts as a Transformer for CuraGen, the original Inventor and Financier, which has spun the company off in order to exploit the technology, rather than keeping it in-house. The spin-off also enables CuraGen to concentrate on its own core activity, namely drug development. For its part, Roche Diagnostics acts as a Financier and a Transformer as it helps 454 to commercialise and distribute the technology, which it has added to its product portfolio alongside other technologies developed in-house.

Nanomix, a firm based in Emeryville, California that was set up by two researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, also sits at the heart of an innovation network. It is commercialising the use of nanotubes, tiny carbon structures that resemble rolled-up chicken wire, as chemical and biomedical sensors. The nanotubes are wrapped in molecular blankets that make them sensitive to specific target chemicals; when the target chemical is present, its interaction with the nanotube causes a change in the nanotube's electrical resistance, which can then be detected. Nanomix is aiming its sensors at the industrial-safety, process-control and biomedical markets. It has licensed related technology from the University of California Los Angeles, and has funding from several venture-capital firms and government agencies.

But Nanomix's expertise in nanotubes can be applied in many other fields beyond its initial target markets. So as well as selling its own range of sensors, respiratory monitors and detection systems, it has licensed some of its technology to DuPont, which will use nanotubes in a new type of flat-panel display. DuPont gains access to the technology without having to develop it itself, and Nanomix gains access to a new market without having to compromise its focus on detection and analysis.

Innovation networks need not always be this complex. Aresa, a biotechnology firm based in Copenhagen, Denmark, has developed a genetically modified form of a common weed, Thale cress, that can be used to detect landmines and other explosives. The weed's leaves turn red in the presence of explosive chemicals in the soil, so that sowing a large area with the weed reveals the location of buried mines. The idea was first developed by a researcher at Copenhagen University, who set up Aresa with funds from Seed Capital, Denmark's largest venture fund, and an angel investor. The technology has since been tested in conjunction with the demining unit of the Danish Army.

Putting the pieces together

A different approach to innovation networks is taken in the field of information technology, where start-ups typically provide building-block technologies that are snapped together by large firms to facilitate deployment of innovative products and services. It is no longer possible for a single firm to build everything in-house, whether a next-generation telecoms network, a mobile handset or a new type of computer. In telecoms, large firms already source more than half of their new product and service ideas externally. Bharti Tele-Ventures, an Indian telecoms operator, has gone further still: it does no internal research and development at all, relying on a network of suppliers, including Ericsson, Nokia and IBM, to source innovative products and services.

As telecoms operators around the world rush to deploy new "converged" networks and services, they are finding that the standards are still immature and not all of the technology can be bought off-the-shelf. This leaves them with two options: assemble all the pieces themselves and develop the necessary software glue in-house, or ask a large equipment-maker to do so on their behalf. All of this has opened up new opportunities for specialist start-ups with expertise in emerging fields such as voice-over-internet telephony, fixed-mobile convergence and television over broadband. The result is a global innovation bazaar as large firms seek out small start-ups or other Inventors with the right technologies to meet their needs.

BridgePort Networks, based in Chicago, Illinois, is a specialist in the field of fixed-mobile convergence, a new service that enables mobile phones to hop seamlessly between a mobile network when outdoors and a fixed-line network when in the home or office. The handover from one network to another involves switching the phone from a cellular connection when outdoors to a short-range wireless connection, based on Wi-Fi, when indoors. The call is then carried over a broadband internet connection using voice-over-internet technology. Co-ordinating the handset with the fixed and mobile networks to ensure that all of this happens smoothly and reliably requires a lot of software behind the scenes, which is BridgePort's speciality. Its software has been trialled by several operators including China Unicom and Bell Canada. Another firm working in this area is Cicero Networks, based in Ireland; its technology has been adopted by operators in Ireland, Norway and Italy. HelloSoft, a firm based in San Jose, California, provides technology to enable handsets to support fixed-mobile operation. Handset-makers using its technology include RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry e-mail device.

In each case these start-ups are Inventors, supplying their technology to operators who act as Transformers by combining building blocks from multiple vendors, large and small, to deploy new services. Operators also often invent their own technology to glue the pieces together, and act as Brokers as they source ideas from Inventors for use in the development of new services. And they generally source some technology from larger vendors, which often combine their own technology with that of small firms. By making use of technology from start-ups, operators and equipment vendors can improve their time-to-market; in the process, they create new opportunities for fast-moving start-ups. It is not hard to see why the idea of a single vendor developing everything in-house is now so unfeasible. Innovation in the network business depends, appropriately enough, on innovation networks.

Like communications networks, computers also consist of a combination of many innovative technologies from different firms. Transitive, a British start-up spun out from the University of Manchester, played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in the development of Apple's new range of Macintosh computers, which are based on Intel microprocessors, rather than the PowerPC chips used in previous Macs. Apple was attracted by the high performance and efficiency of Intel's new processors — but how could it ensure compatibility with existing software, written to run on PowerPC chips? Transitive's software, developed with Intel's assistance, provided the answer. It converts software written for one chip so that it can run on another chip, and does so on the fly, like a simultaneous translator. By licensing the software, Apple was able to launch its new computers quickly; for its part, Transitive gained access to a new market. And by collaborating with Transitive, Intel helped expand its market too.

The field of open source software provides what is arguably the most extreme case of an innovation network. Such software is made available free on the internet, and anyone who downloads it can then modify it and improve it, provided they make such improvements available to others. Users are also invited to help test the software, find bugs, translate it into new languages and suggest new features, thus bringing them into the innovation network. One of the best known examples of open source software is the Firefox web browser, which is maintained by the Mozilla Foundation. It is the last vestige of Netscape, the pioneering browser firm that was defeated by Microsoft and later purchased by AOL. Today Mozilla is a non-profit organisation, spun out of AOL with a $2m grant. With its vibrant ecosystem of in-house and volunteer programmers, enthusiasts who develop additional plug-ins and evangelical users who have helped Firefox to establish a 15% market share, Mozilla is a striking example of how new technology need not simply flow from the laboratory to the customer; innovation is a two-way street.

Risky business

High oil prices, concern over global warming and the march of ever more sophisticated handheld devices all mean that energy has become one of the hottest new fields of technology. But it is still very early days for many new energy technologies such as fuel cells, solar panels and energy-storage systems. Hundreds of start-ups are competing in each field, and large companies are hedging their bets by forming alliances with them. As in biotech, in other words, start-ups provide a means for larger firms to outsource research and development and mitigate the risks associated with unproven new technologies. Indeed, 22% of R&D is outsourced in energy, more than in any other industry. (The figures are 14% in pharmaceuticals and 11% in information technology, according to Forrester.)

Given the relative immaturity of the field, the resulting innovation networks are less elaborate than in biotech, where start-ups and large firms license each other's ideas and buy each other's technologies. Instead, innovation networks in the field of energy allow large firms to participate at arm's length, by funding particular start-ups or signing licensing agreements to gain access to promising technologies once they have been validated. Such tie-ups help to keep small firms afloat; but many such firms also sell their products directly as they validate their designs and establish market credibility.

Lilliputian Systems, a spin-out from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is developing a tiny solid-oxide fuel cell to power portable electronic devices. A fuel cell is a chemical battery that combines a fuel with oxygen from the air to generate electricity. Lilliputian Systems' fuel cell is based on technology developed at MIT and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, with funding from DARPA and several venture-capital firms. It has agreements with leading handset-makers, who are looking for new ways to power high-end multimedia smartphones as they become ever more elaborate and energy-hungry. Handset manufacturers are unwilling to take on the risk of developing such technology themselves, so they are relying on start-ups to do it for them; in return, they will provide access to a vast market if and when the technology matures. Portable fuel cells have notoriously been two years away from commercialisation for the past five years, but many observers believe they are now finally poised to make a breakthrough.

Another technology that shows potential but has yet to deliver on its promise is that of thin-film solar panels. Traditionally, solar panels are based on silicon wafers, but the resulting panels are expensive and fragile, and high demand has led to a shortage of silicon which has pushed prices up even further in recent years. Thin-film panels have higher efficiencies and use little or no silicon. But despite some promising prototypes, scaling thin-film technology up has proved difficult, and low yields mean that thin-film solar cells are still only marginally cheaper than silicon cells. What is needed is improved manufacturing techniques to increase yields and reduce costs.

One company working to solve this problem is Nanosolar, based in Palo Alto, California. It has developed a method to print thin-film solar-panel technology in a continuous process, and is now building the world's largest thin-film solar factory, which it hopes will be able to produce 200m solar panels a year. Nanosolar is backed by venture-capital firms and an array of technology luminaries, including the founders of Google. It is working with Conergy, a big alternative-energy systems integrator, to bring its products to market. Flisom is a rival firm, spun out of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, that is also developing a "roll-to-roll" process for printing thin-film solar panels. It is commercialising technology originally developed at ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Funding has come from venture-capital firms, and initial trials have been conducted with the Swiss Army. Flisom plans to target the emergency-response market initially, before moving on to low-cost solar panels for buildings.

ClimateWell, a Swedish firm, has developed a solar-powered air-conditioning system. This makes sense because the demand for air-conditioning is greatest on hot, sunny days. Thermal collectors gather sunlight and use it to dry an absorbent salt that strongly attracts water from its surroundings. This salt can then be used for cooling, by placing it in a vacuum with a vessel of water. The water evaporates and is absorbed by the salt, but as it does so it cools. This cooling effect can then be used to provide air-conditioning. The technology was originally developed by ChemCool, a Finnish firm, which spun it off into a separate subsidiary. It then merged with Solsam Sunergy, a Swedish firm, and money was raised from venture-capital investors and via a share offering. The technology has been tested in conjunction with Spanish utility firms, and ClimateWell is now building a factory in Spain. It will sell its products through utility firms and to property developers for inclusion in new homes.

Dedicated start-ups, in short, are a good way to mitigate the risks of developing potentially revolutionary energy technologies: large firms can strike deals with many start-ups following different strategies, rather than having to back a particular horse themselves. Those start-ups, in turn, may rely on technology from many different fields of research. Innovation networks are a natural way to connect all these various actors together.

Network effects

Early adopters of innovation networks are benefiting as a result, says Forrester's Mr Radjou. Procter & Gamble, for example, increased its product hit rate from 70% in 2001 to over 90% by acting as a Transformer and providing market access for innovations from external Inventors, as well as those developed in-house. IBM, once the very model of a vertically integrated innovator, now generates $2 billion a year licensing its innovations to other firms, a model many other companies are now striving to emulate.

Embracing the new model is not a simple process, particularly for large companies that are used to controlling every stage in the innovation cycle. To succeed, they must first decide which roles to play: this involves identifying the areas where a company has a particular advantage as an Inventor, and being prepared to partner with other firms elsewhere. That in turn means ditching the "not invented here" mentality to ensure that in-house researchers are prepared to open up to external sources of innovation, and encouraging in-house innovators to consider the possibility that another organisation might be best-placed to exploit some of their ideas. In the new environment, the ability to select and successfully manage the right partner relationships is just as important as the ability to come up with bright ideas in the labs. Inevitably, open innovation gives rise to other new challenges – for example, how to protect intellectual property while sharing it with other players in the innovation network.

Companies must also make organisational changes if they are to exploit innovation networks to the full, in particular by ensuring that their computing infrastructures support efficient collaboration and sharing of information throughout the organisation. Finally, innovation networks depend on the recognition that innovation need not come only from the research laboratory, but from other sources, both internal and external, too. That does not just mean academics, other firms or consultancies: it also includes overlooked sources of innovation within a company. Sales and marketing divisions, for example, are closer to the customer than the research department and may have a better idea of what customers actually need. Whether it involves a suggestions box or an intranet portal, innovation networks must also tap into these internal sources of ideas; and that in turn requires a shift in corporate culture, so that every part of the company is regarded as being involved in the innovation process.

None of this is easy. But already, thanks to a few pioneering firms, the outlines of a new model for 21st-century innovation are becoming apparent. It is a model designed for today's world of global markets, accelerating product cycles and vigorous competition. Being connected to an innovation network could soon prove to be just as important as being connected to the power grid or the internet. To prosper in this new environment, companies both large and small must get themselves plugged in as quickly as possible.

Enjoy in-depth insights and expert analysis - subscribe to our Perspectives newsletter, delivered every week