Innovation: Lessons from the European Institute of Technology
Early Lessons from the European Institute of Innovation and Technology: Eliminating Doubt About the Difficulty of Organizing Innovation.
"...collaboration is an unnatural action among nonconsenting adults." [i]
Every student of public policy appreciates the impressive body of work of Eugene Bardach. And in particular reading about the implementation process often reminds me of the above quote. Reading a recent article in Science regarding the European Institute of Innovation and Technology made me think of it yet again.[ii] But beyond the customary startup issues everyone encounters in a new endeavor, the piece also made me think of this question: Do we know enough about innovationboth as a process and an outcometo make it more likely? In other words, is there a science of innovation? [iii]
Here is a related example: During the 111th Congress (2009-10), I was staffing my former boss regarding her activities as a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology (now called the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology). The Committee took up a lot of interesting business in those sessions, but two hearings in particular come to mind as I read about a number of current event issues. Both were called by the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and both related to the science of finance: one about the various meanings, calculations and implications of insolvency; the other about risk modeling and its role in the great market (and economic) upheavals in 2007 and 2008.
The reason I think about these hearings is that they demonstrated how little we (both government and industry) knew about important topicstopics that were to be the subject of legislation and other policy actions as well as entire business models that had recentlyand catastrophicallyfailed, all while there was good reason to argue at the time that the science of financial modeling was much more advanced than that of innovation. Accordingly, when I read about innovation initiatives, or job creation plans, or regional development proposals, among others, I wonder to what extent our prescriptions for action arise from a common set of concepts that are, if not science in the sense of bench chemistry, at least reasonable in light of a fair telling of past study, history and other informed consensus.
As I mentioned in my last article on patent reform, innovation is one of the concepts that even those at opposing ends of the U.S. political spectrum can acknowledge as important. That, especially in these contentious times, is no small opportunity.
And that innovation is viewed as a near universal good elsewhere is well evidenced by the establishment of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (originally proposed as the European Institute of Technology).[iv] However, even efforts to create paradigm-changing technology are subject to the familiar challenges of building an organization. The Science article by research policy expert Colin Macilwainrelates some of the past and future challenges of the Institute, and in doing so it offers valuable lessons for anyone interested in innovation in North America.
EIT and Location.
It's certainly understandable that opinions would differ among the various countries participating in the EIT regarding where its headquarters would be best located. Perhaps it's also understandable that the resulting compromise was that "rather than a brick-and-mortar institute, it became a network of dozens of universities and companies across Europe, with a small headquarters in Budapest."[v] However, the ultimate choice was described by Mr. Macilwain as "a fudge," the nature of which follows.
EIT and Participant Buy-In.
In the case of the EIT, location critiques and constituent/partner buy-in shortfalls are in important (and modern) ways related. The reaction of UK-based chipmaker ARM, [vi] an important corporate participant was noted as follows: "...the effectiveness of EIT was 'destined to be greatly disappointing,' arguing that its co-location model was 'impossible' and 'unnecessary' in a world in which research partners no longer need to be close together to collaborate. 'Their implementation is rooted in the past,' ARM's principal engineer, Ian Phillips." And beyond the corporate partners, university partners have also expressed reservations regarding the EIT's selection of policy areas for its initial effortsnamely, energy, information technology, and climate change.[vii] "There is huge frustration from these universities, including those who are participating [in the three initial KICs] and those who are not," over EIT's failure to consult with them, says Karin Markides, president of the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAER)."
With both industry and the public sector being important sources of funding for the EIT, reactions such as that of ARM and CESAER certainly need to be addressed.
The EIT and Personnel.
Turnover itself is not often surprising, but if it's at the top of the structure there are probably numerous costspatent and latent. In this case, "the first director of EIT, ...left last September [2010] after 12 months in the position. His successor ...didn't start until July [2011]."
EIT and Finance.
The original budget of the EIT (for the period from 2008 through 2013) was ?309 million ($428.9 million USD; $424.3 CAN). The request for the period from 2014 to is ?4 billion, a considerable challenge given current economic and fiscal challenges in the EU.
Conclusion
I suspect that anyone who has been part of a launch of nearly any can readily identify with each of the problems EIT has encountered. If anything, they merely point to the fact that manager-generalists will always have a role in startups, even in technical environments.
Importantly for both the EIT and the EU, there's an open and ongoing spirit of collaboration among the participants. As mentioned by one: "Most of us really believe in this concept." [viii]
Perhaps even more hopefully, by another: "I'm pretty convinced that what they are doing in education will add value," says Peter Tindemans, chair of the policy committee at the lobby group Euroscience and a longtime skeptic about EIT's organization model.
And while collaboration may not be a natural state, as offered by Eugene Bardach, there are very practical incentives, one being bluntly offered as follows: "This is the only way European innovation can make a breakthrough... Otherwise, in 20 years' time, we will just be living in a theme park." [ix] (Has anyone ever said that necessity is the mother of innovation?)
In short, the EIT is a concept to be envied and a process to be studied closely, as the latter will undoubtedly help add to our understanding of organizing innovationsomething arguably as important as innovation itself.
Written by Dan Hill, a Tax and Economics Policy Expert who was Counsel and Policy Advisor in the United States House of Representatives., a Public Policy Fellow and Wildlife Commissioner for the Commonwealth of PA.
