Dismantling the Cultural Barriers to Scientific Progress

James Woudhuysen is Professor of Forecasting and Innovation at De Montfort University, Leicester. Blogging from the hyper-cool Dana Centre.

But here we are again in a public space, with only http access to the worldwide web. Can't even get out via GPRS - mobile coverage inhibited by the concrete and the special coatings on the windows - it's like being in a Faraday cage.

I was waitlisted for the talk - they're streaming it to the d.cafe (which would have been fine anyway) - but there's space in the lecture room.

James starts with some good jokes - you need the slides really - audience doesn't seem to get most of them

Photo of James by Lewis Woudhuysen. James' site: CLICK
My comments on his talk CLICK
Important to think about the world of work - Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations. Understanding the future of work and IT - is key to economic development. But has technology really added to our productivity and how can we predict what will happen next?

Predicting the future is possible

Piper Alpha example - shutdown period is most dangerous - 18hr days, regs broken, wrote about it [for the FT] and got into trouble with Shell. Piper Alpha disaster happened about 2 years later.

It is possible to predict the future and you can lower the role of intuition. Change is not the only metric. There are elements of continuity that are very important. There needs to be a 'sense of agency' about the future.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is much more subtle than most people realise - or use. Man is a creature of talents as well as needs. Most marketing people don't get that (they should dig out Maslow's paper of 1943 and read it in the context both of its time and ours).

James worked at Philips and they invented everything and marketed nothing - regarded as too tech-led. The old model of industrial innovation is not hip anymore - long hard work and linear development. We talk about 'network' innovations - conceptual effort is more important than having a 'big lab'.

Our focus is on marginal product improvement - not real innovation

Relentless focus on product and cosmetics. Less focus on process innovation. The contemptuous attitude to longterm research and innovation in the UK is a key to understanding this issue. Look at the way the Chinese are committed to building the future (even if it is excessive sometimes).

It's not about optimism or pessimism about the future. It's about a commitment to the future. Chinese industry has learned how to develop based on inspection/testing which is morphing into Design/R&D. The Chinese are building a longterm R&D capability - we are not (Japan and USA are still doing this).

The initiative for innovation has passed to the East

James wants to put into perspective the New Labour focus on the creative industries. In place of longterm research - we are focused on cheap Development and creative marketing.

Demand orientation about user needs and market segment rejigging is taking precedence over vision-led innovation.

Sense in the West that we are not innovative enough. Is it ok to make mistakes? Not really. No employer of James has ever rewarded people for making mistakes. Conspiracy theories about corporations don't help. Government is obsesively focused on regulatory processes (see the health and safety industry as example)

James concludes that the initiative has gone away from us to the East.

Is there a silver lining for Woudhuysen's Black Cloud Universe?

Innovations are happening - look at mobile, Apple iChat, video conferencing will work. Technological innovation can make us more productive and, in particular, the increased use of the visual helps us to communicate more richly.

More visual is more likely

The face expresses many emotions that are understood wherever you come from or whoever you are:
angry, joyful, surprised, afraid, distressed or disgusted - all these are visually communicated irrespective of spoken language.
So there will be many more visuals, bendy screens. TV as wallpaper - flat screen TVs - as big as your wall.
are very popular in Korea - more visual is more likely.

Voice is not dead - and voice innovation is slow but happening

Voice is still important especially at CD quality. Poor voice quality shows how slow innovation has been in this area. There is now no reason why voice can't innovate - example of Digilog [Clinton photo!] - insurance companies are using this to detect lies.
The richness of voice communication is important - look at the communication potential - voice is 3.3 - 6.7 words per second compared with pen of 0.3-0.5 words per second [speaks quickly to demonstrate how we can understand even very rapid speech].
Leapfrog fly pen as example. Makes the margin on the special paper or cartridges. These are toys but they demonstrate the combination of voice and aural and gestural inputs/outputs.

Media and real creativity or bean-counting and KPI innovation

More mobile - more visual, better voice calls, and even voice recognition??

I say bring it on! The Chinese and Japanese say bring it on. But the Guardian and Independent say - 'switch the standby light off or we'll all die'

James Purnell - says Britain will be the world's creative hub. [The audience thinks this is funny!]

But we see hubris and the KPI creation industry. We're very creative as a nation of accountants. Manchester example of paying for parking over mobile. Eva Pascoe.

Where is Europe's new product development equivalent of Google's product development? If you create a new and clever product you can create a new market. Europe doesn't do NPD - not even at product level let alone at process level.

It's a very fearful conception of work that we have now. Work is dangerous.

It's all too scary!

The Day After Tomorrow
Britain engulfed by New Deluge
power blackouts
tax road and air travel
trade carbon, buy Russian energy, build windmills, lurch to nuclear
And remember you're all oil addicts.

It's hardly surprising that growth takes a back set to the politics of fear. The Moon is left to the Chinese.

London's creative class flatter thenselves about creativity. But mobile has made no impact on productivity especially in the public sector.

EU Framework programmes are not generating any real innovation - and we're on number VII.

Where has the fear of innovation come from? Example of Mary Shelley and Frakenstein. The lesson is against Dr F - not the poor old monster.
The attack is on those inventing the new - fears of tech have been around a long time. Think of the 'Can Do' era of Ronnie Reagan. Convergence did not take place in 1982 (Naisbitt - Megatrends).

Caution in middle of 80's from Drucker on innovation (1985) - example of HBR business review of world freight (make unloading faster rather than ships faster). The discipline of innovation - don't revolutionise an industry. Drucker offered user demand and demography to de-risk innovation. Drucker's dismissal of tech innovation is 'alignment with the corporate mindset'.

We can have a febrile period of optimism (dot com boom) but we believe that pride comes before a fall.

Example of Thatcher as a conviction politician - didn't like her but she went for it.

The fears of tech innovation are deeply underneath the combination of devices we use esp mobile. Before 9/11 the view of IT was that it wasn't delivering benefit. After 9/11 more focus on business continuity than innovation. The discussion is not about wealth creation - more about resisting a bombing attack.

Attitude reflected in the world of design. We face so many wealth creation challenges - it's not about delight in objects or emotional connection with design. Displacement activity of narratives - this is a substitue for genuine innovation.

Sir Howard Newby: quote re "Maths, chemistry, engineering, biology is 19th Century. Excitement is in cross-border discipline" head of HEFCE. This demeans the enterprise of R&D in our country. The old GE model where companies could do everything has gone. Idea of innovation is that users innovate. Harvard example of bringing in IP from elsewhere.

Resist the Politics of Fear

We can learn from US technology - need to be prepared to take risks that confront the regulatory climate we are dealing with. Better arguments and rigorous debate. It means that we need to ask strong question about the 'bullshit economy' of work which is displacement activity. Most important thing is to resist the politics of fear.

QUESTIONS

Q - Where will innovation come from?
A - EU has a good record in mobile phones. But it's not enough. You cannot design a dam on a mobile phone or develop an Air Traffic Control system. Mobiles need to be seen in a wider context.

We are innovating in areas such as Stem Cell Research.

London is a financial services phenomenon, other cities are more about shopping. Barriers are cultural.

Q - Political question - big problem is desperate state of maths and science education in schools. Very serious issue for us. Over concentration on English - we need more Maths.

James - Agrees. Need to confront the Philistine culture of government against science.

Q re role of government. What is the imperative today? Government is not agent of change anymore. Companies may be example (Ebay buying Skype). Can we create our own Googles and Skypes.

A - Government can't fix these things. Purchase of companies is not evidence of innovative activity. Where are the new Fords, Boeings and Microsofts? Mainstream corporate world is not committed to long term research and development.

Q from James Cridland from Virgin Radio - be nice to have a graduate who can write English. NIH is not necessarily a bad thing. Yahoo have bought del.icio.us, flikr. ITV is moving in a similar direction.

A - Darwinian corporate competition may not deliver the right level of adaptation. I don't think there's anything useful about big companies buying smaller companies.

Q - from guy who has just flown in from Tokyo - mobile is productive. If you look at IPPC forecasts we need 6 fold carbon reduction - we could have that as a target for innovation which would be commercially attractive.

Q - How do you see technology convergence with innovation. Q - added on process innovation and simplicity of drug development?