Innovación en la Ciencia interesante perspectiva.

Science-Driven Innovation: The Final Frontier

Science-Driven Innovation: The Final Frontier 1

Randy Lyhus for the chronicle

Enlarge Image

By Donald Ingber

There has been a great deal of discussion recently—much of it fraught with frustration—about the challenges facing our nation’s academic communities: How do we support basic curiosity-driven research and maintain our position as the global leader in innovation and technology at a time of rapidly dwindling government funds? This dilemma was at the heart of a workshop convened by the National Academies that I attended in September in Washington.

One potential solution, much discussed at the conference, is through the creation of a new model of transdisciplinary research that pulls together investigators from many disciplines to focus, or converge, on high-value, near-term goals. This excites the industrial sector because it generates information that can more quickly translate into commercial innovation, but many people in the scientific community are frankly terrified by this approach. They feel that focusing on solving specific problems in the short term could steal funds from fundamental, investigator-driven research that delves into new terrain—essentially, the scientific equivalent of Captain Kirk’s “final frontier”—and which often uncovers high-value problems and solutions that no one knew existed.

There is a solution to this conundrum. I serve as founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, which develops engineering innovations by emulating how nature builds. With support from a major philanthropic gift, and from visionary leadership at Harvard and our affiliated hospitals and universities, we developed a new model of innovation, collaboration, and technology translation that has attracted more than $125-million in research support from federal agencies, private foundations, and for-profit companies.

With 18 core and 11 associate faculty members, we have produced more than 625 publications, 600 patent applications, scores of corporate collaborations, several start-ups, and two human clinical trials over the past four and a half years.

How do we do this? Our approach is simple: We empower our individual scientists and engineers to turn their vision-inspired research into practical solutions to real-world problems. We give them the resources they need to translate their basic research into technologies and then help them to develop those technologies into commercially viable products and therapies. We do this by introducing scientists and engineers with extensive industrial experience in goal-oriented product development into key positions in our academic-research teams. Experienced business-development staff members, working with the university’s Office of Technology Development, also help coordinate these efforts and develop meaningful alliances with major industrial partners and corporate investors.

How can such an approach succeed in an academic empire composed of fiefdoms headed by entrepreneurial faculty who guard their territories with their lives? Our core faculty members, who are drawn from universities and hospitals across the Greater Boston area, maintain labs at their home institutions. But they know that if they want a seat at the round table of the institute, they must leave their personal agendas at the door and agree to participate in the collaborative culture for the benefit of all. Our research space is not allocated to individual faculty but rather organized as “collaboratories,” each of which is linked to a problem-oriented project.

We have also discarded the conventional model of grant reviews to distribute funds to our members. Instead we divide a portion of our funds among individual faculty members, which gives them and their students and fellows complete creative freedom. We then funnel a much larger investment into “enabling technology platforms,” each devoted to exploring a new high-risk research area. These platforms—consisting of faculty, technical staff, students, fellows, clinicians, and collaborators—build upon the brilliant advances that emerge from individual faculty labs to develop new breakthrough technological capabilities. In the end, it is always people who lead to innovation, not grant proposals or committees. So we invest in people.

Our nation desperately wants solutions to pressing health, environmental, and social problems and so, understandably, the impulse in Congress is to direct resources to goal-oriented, convergent research. But this leaves basic-science investigators in a quandary: Does the funneling of research dollars mean a temporary refocusing of investment or a catastrophic long-term shift toward a new mode of funding that will lead to their extinction? The latter is not a viable investment strategy for the continued growth of the economy.

Very simply, for the country to remain at the helm of innovation, it must persuade its best minds to continue thinking and discovering. It must provide funds to nurture their vision-inspired research—to pump the idea pipeline—while simultaneously investing in the kind of convergent, problem-oriented approaches that will turn basic discoveries into transformative technologies and commercially viable products. Only then will we be able to steer our national Enterprise to go where it has never gone before.

Donald Ingber is founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, and a professor in the medical and engineering schools there.

En The chronicle of higer education

http://chronicle.com/article/Science-Driven-Innovation-The/142785/?cid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en

Advertisements

Minuta del jueves 22 de agosto 2013

Universidad Iberoamericana
Maestría en Diseño Estratégico e Innovación
Materia: Diseño Estratégico e Innovación II
Prof.: Nora Morales
Grupo.: Otoño 2013
Participantes: Nora Morales, Mauricio Guadarrama, Ana Sordo, Lorena Irastorza, Diana Martínez, Eduardo Martínez, Pedro Romero, Paulina Garza, Carlos Silva y Mauricio Ordóñez.

 

México, D.F. a 22 de agosto del 2013.
UNIVERSIDAD IBEROAMERICANA, A.C.
SALON Q119

18.05hrs. a 22.03hrs

LECTURA DE INNOVACION

La sesión empezó con los comentarios de la lectura#2… La Caja de herramientas de innovación. Una guía para el nuevo diseño. EVOLUCIÓN. Agencias de diseño están desarrollando nuevas herramientas y habilidades con el fin de que coincida con un aumento de la demanda en el mercado.

¿Qué es la investigación cualitativa?
Explora hipótesis y genera otras de carácter inductivo.
Funciona 
Porque permite descubrir más que confirmar aspectos no verbales y complementa otros métodos.

Se utiliza para representar al consumidor, sus intenciones atrás de las acciones, lenguaje y contexto. Se mencionó como la herramienta entre los clientes y la gente que hace innovación que parte la manera artística-intiuitiva-sensible (no estructurada) a los que llegan de manera más estructura científicamente. Hay que complementar la parte creativa, con el diseño y el modelo de negocio.No dejar todo el proceso de manera anecdótica….Algunas agencias que lo manejan dentro de su estilo pueden ser IDEO en una parte OFFF.MX en otra.

El Valor del cliente esta en todas la etapas del proceso del Diseño… no integrarlo solamente en algunas.

Se retomó el proyecto y objeto de estudio que sería la Cocina, para verlo de manera muy complejo como un (Ecosistema). Observar … los objetos, actores, valores, momentos, etc. Hacer lasl preguntas de ¿Qué significa, para qué sirve, cuál es su importancia, los procesos, tipología, etc.

¿Hay que encontrar el tipo de innovación… Disruptiva o Incremental.

De aquí se entra al tema y las definiciones y técnicas para llevar a cabo una OBSERVACION: Se muestran ejemplos visuales y dudas acerca de una Investigación de Mercado con el ejemplo de comercial de AXXA, que fue retirado del aire.

A continuación se da un breve resumen de todo lo definido, explicado y ejemplificando en la clase…

¿Qué es la investigación cuantitativas?
Utiliza Datos numéricos para dar información en los siguientes puntos.

  • Observación
  • Entrevista
  • Diarios de uso
  • Narrativas
  • Funciona

Mediante el desarrollo de ciertos pasos, para llegar a una conclusión o diagnóstico.

Diseño del proyecto

• Reclutamiento y facilidades
• Cuestionarios, instrucciones de campo
• Conducir entrevistas
• Sesiones de análisis
• Desarrollar documentos finales.

Image

OBSERVACIÓN: Técnica para obtener información de lo que se ve para analizarla después.

  • Examinar atentamente.
  • Elemento fundamental para la investigación. (datos).

OBSERVACIÓN FORMAL: Es ver específicamente algún dato.
Puede ser:

  • Grupal / Individual
    – individual: a uno solo.
    – grupal: a varias personas.
  • Directa/ Indirecta
    – Directo: contacto con el dato.
    – Indirecto: fuente de contacto externo.
  • Participante/ No participante
    – Participante: convive con la investigación.
    – No participante: no convive con la investigación.
  • De campo o de Laboratorio
    – De campo: donde ocurren los hechos reales.
    – Laboratorio: lugares pre-establecidos con actitudes y entornos fabricados.
  • Estructurada/ No estructurada
    – Estructurada: lineamientos.
    – No estructurada: se define en el camino.

OBSERVACION INFORMAL: Es ver sin objetivo.

  • Rasgos importantes:
  1. ¿Qué?
  2. ¿Para qué?
  3. ¿Hasta donde se va a llegar?
  4. ¿Cómo?
  5. ¿Qué técnica usar?
  6. ¿Cuánto?
  7. Interpretación de datos. Sin juicio, ni emoción.

Recursos de Registro de la Observación:

Fichas, Registros anecdóticos (notas), grabaciones fotografías, listados, mapas, gráficas, dibujos bosquejos, (story board), modelos, etc.

TÉCNICA A, E, I , O , U.

  • Actividad: acciones.
  • Entorno: símbolos recurrentes.
  • Interacción: como se comporta.
  • Objeto: fin de ese dato.
  • Usuario: características de los perfiles.

Image

Técnica de presentación. Línea del Tiempo.
Fotografías de seguimiento entre le usuario y el producto mostrando hábitos y conflictos.

Image

Narrativa
Diario recopilado mediante tecnología digital, fotografía, video, etc, donde muestra la interacción en vivo del usuario y el producto. Uso de recursos de datos en la web.

Para cerrrar la sesión se determinó el poder observar y poder realizar preguntas de la cocina a adultos mayores o vulnerables de manera indiviudal y que cada quien pueda registrar los datos, según las técnicas expuestas, basándonos en preguntas concretas como lo son:
¿Pará que usa la cocina un adulto mayor?
¿Barreras al cocinar o desplazarse en ella?
¿Cómo la usan?

Tomar 30 fotografías como mínimo del usuario-objeto a observar.
Próxima reunión en Insitum, día 29 de agosto a las 18.30 hrs.

Colima #388
Col. Roma Norte, CP 06700
México, Distrito Federal
Tel. +52 (55) 5616.8888

Lectura #3 Secondary Research Guide
Fué enviada, presentación y cuadros de observación por Nora Morale, Araceli Cifuentes y Mauricio G.

 

Libros y Links

Ten Types of Innovation, Larry Kelley  http://www.doblin.com/tentypes/

Diles que yo lo construí, conferencia Keynote en EPIC 2012

Acabo de asistir a una conferencia de EPIC 2012 Ethnography Practice in Industry Conference en Savannah Georgia en SCAD (Savannah College of Arts and Design) esta conferencia reúne antropólogos, diseñadores y gente de negocios y el tema de esta vez fue RENEWAL 

 La conferencia Keynote, muy recomendable.

 

<div style=”font-size: 11px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;width:560px”>Watch live streaming video from scadelearning at livestream.com</div>

 

Acaso los consultores de innovación matan a la innovación

Do Innovation Consultants Kill Innovation?

Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen argue that innovation is too messy to be captured in any process. So how can big firms innovate?

Are companies more innovative than ever before? Judging from the vast number of Fortune 500 companies professing their commitment to innovation, the answer is yes.

But we sense that the more a company talks, thinks, and strategizes about innovation, the less real, big innovation it produces. Take the electronics maker Philips, which introduced one of the world’s first electronic razors, the compact cassette, the CD, and many other game-changing inventions. In more recent years, Philips has been a fixture at innovation and design conferences, presenting impressive strategies, road maps, and processes. The company commands impressive sales–its market cap is about $15 billion–but most people would be hard-pressed to think of a recent exciting breakthrough from the Dutch company. Nokia, also a self-proclaimed innovation leader, is another example of a company that has been very good at innovation strategizing but not so good at following through on its promise.

 

Can you really decouple innovation from entrepreneurship?

We are not alone in our belief that innovation in one respect hasplateaued. In his seminal work, The Innovator’s Dilemma, Clayton Christensen elegantly explains why big firms can’t innovate. But we believe a recent development–paradoxically fuelled by Christensen’s theories–is contributing to big companies’ innovation struggles: The rise of the innovation professional. In their innovation quest, large corporations and institutions have set up new organizational structures to capture the value of innovation. Innovation managers and consultants have swept into corporate hallways and boardrooms promising a clear, more effective, systematic, and rigorous approach to innovation. But it seems what they are really doing is making innovation more abstract and institutionalized.

 

The creation of the innovation consultant marks a sea change. Through the industrialized age, innovation was tied to entrepreneurs; now, it seems to depend on salaried employees who are more concerned about securing their pay checks than with taking the gambles that lead to big innovation rewards. Whether decoupling innovation from entrepreneurship will be successful has yet to be seen.

The new breed of innovation professionals we have encountered can be placed in two categories: innovation custodians and innovation word-slingers. The custodians are middle managers assigned to oversee the innovators and their processes. The word-slingers are external consultants that will take corporate managers through endless innovation workshops or blabber on about the aforementioned processes.

The problem with the innovation professionals is twofold. First, they rarely have the stubborn, single-minded maverick attitude that it takes to innovate in a substantive way. Second, it professionalizes innovation, which should be an attitude that organically runs through the culture of an organization. Companies that succeed at innovation–Apple, Google, and GE, for example–have their own innovation DNA that exists independent of innovation managers. They’ve also been fortunate to have true entrepreneurs at their helms, an aspect that can’t be easily replicated by other firms. Sure, not all companies can be Google.

So how does an ordinary, not so innovative company go from innovation-thinking to innovation-doing?

 

Innovation only occurs if it’s an attitude that runs through a company’s culture.

We believe that a bigger, more diverse, and more creative innovation ecosystem could be inspired by the high-tech, biotech, and the movie industries. These fields don’t devise innovation road maps or hire dozens of consultants; instead, they invest in concrete, tangible outcomes. How would film history have looked if Sergei Eisenstein had spent time defending his ideas against consultants warning him against risky movie-making? We mention Eisenstein because he hadn’t turned 27 when he got massively funded to make The Battleship Potemkin, what some regard as the best movie to date and certainly was when it aired. The method relied on combining the right task with the right talent. We believe there is such a method you can follow that improves your chances of developing effective innovation, because when we examine the creative processes involved, it is possible to identify a number of common traits.

 

[Consultants at work: The two Bobs from Office Space]

 

These industries put together teams of specialists that are handpicked to tackle a specific assignment under a director’s leadership. This is a demanding, unconventional way to work with innovation, but the method is known from the way Hollywood films are created. It places heavy demands on the director, who has to distribute the tasks in a way that allows him or her to maintain control.

People with strong, creative talents are essential to the development of innovations, and the difference between success and disaster is largely defined by the selection of a good team–not by its processes. Just as a company can hire an ad agency or designer to create an ad or a product, companies in all industries need to find ways to tap into a network of people, small companies, or institutions with real inventions and show them some faith.

Sometimes a company will have to breed and nurse the talent itself. Sometimes the talent are guns for hire. But companies should have the confidence to give them the freedom to explore the high-risk messiness and the fuzzy, nonlinear ways in which innovation grows.

***

Written by Jens Martin Skibsted and Rasmus Bech Hansen.