|
The Science Times section of the New York Times recently published an interesting feature -- entitled "Determined to Re-inspire a Culture of Innovation" -- on recently retired President of the National Academy of Engineering, Dr. William Wulf. It seems to me that Wulf provides evidence -- even if it's only a single data point -- that it is possible for an individual to embody the technical sophistication of a world class engineer and the business savvy of a highly successful innovator / entrepreneur.
Ironically, I've just returned from visiting with senior leaders of two large technology-intensive companies:
Case 1: a company whose core competency is production processes on a massive scale; and
Case 2: a company whose core competency is software development on a massive scale.
In one case, the company has recruited an innovative CTO to help drive organic growth through innovation. In the other case, the company is struggling to figure out how to deal with the impending retirement of the innovators / entrepreneurs that have made it one of the most successful companies in the world.
Wulf states that the economy of innovation depends not only on an educated workforce and abundant investment in innovation, but also on intellectual property law, tax codes, patent procedures, export controls, immigration regulations and [other] factors making up what he calls the ecology of innovation. All the elements in the ecology of innovation can be in place, but innovation will still languish unless there are creative, entrepreneurial innovators who can leverage that ecology. On the other hand, the productivity of those entrepreneurial innovators will be constrained if the innovation ecology is non-supportive.
The article reports that there are elements of culture that form an important part of the ecology of innovation, and in this regard the United States has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that an innovation that fails in the marketplace carries much less stigma for the innovator here than in other parts of the world. On the other hand, there is widespread ignorance of science and technology in the U.S. Wulf suggests that 90% of our population is incapable of intelligent conversation about some of the most important [science and technology] policy issues of the day.
Wulf indicates that the U.S. has ceded the its dominance in mass production manufacturing to low wage countries -- a hard cold reality that should obviously concern engineers who work for the Case 1 company that I referenced above. Many of these engineers were trained, as I was, to be competent in "routine engineering" in support of mass manufacturing. However, Wulf goes on to say that unless something is done to improve the ecology of innovation, we will miss the opportunity for a comeback in the coming age of mass customization. He suggests that this is a knowledge-intensive kind of manufacturing that will not be done by low wage labor. He concludes by indicating that we have the potential to be the greatest manufacturing country in the world, but we are doing nothing about it, i.e. nothing about improving our ecology of innovation that will be necessary to support mass customization production. I suggest that in addition we need our educational institutions, as well as professional training systems and processes, to support the development of individuals who embody both superior technical skills and business savvy -- people like Dr. Wulf; the CTO hired by the Case 1 company referenced above; and the founding team of technical entrepreneurs that have made the Case 2 company so successful.
It seems to me that it is much easier to add business savvy to a technically skillful engineer than to add technical sophistication to a business savvy entrepreneur. Hence it's my hope that more engineers will sustain their technical competence while also having the courage, vision, energy and commitment to get outside their technical comfort zones in order to become more skillful in the art and science of business. By the way skill comes from practice. Gaining knowledge is necessary but insufficient for becoming skillful.
| 
Re: THE ECOLOGY OF INNOVATION
