View
238
Download
4
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Jack LangUniversity of Cambridge
European Innovating MindsEuropean Innovating Minds
Research and innovation: what Research and innovation: what about private sector?about private sector?
jal1@cam.ac.ukjal1@cam.ac.uk
Director of Studies in Management, Emmanuel College
Entrepreneur in Residence, Judge Business School
Affiliated Lecturer and Faculty Board member, Department of Computer Science and Technology
Steward, Cambridge Angels
ISBN: 0273656155
ISBN: 0273656155
Cambridge ClusterCambridge Cluster
About 1500 companies– Employing about 50,000
Largest European cluster– 8% of all EU VC investment
$20 billion value created by Cambridge Alumni
– Stanford $1000 billion? Billion $ market cap
companies – ARM, – Virata, – CSR, – Autonomy, – Cambridge Antibody
Cambridge Angels
Source: Cambridge Technopole Report
Cambridge ClusterCambridge Cluster
About 1500 companies– Employing about 50,000– Technion ~30
Largest European cluster $20 billion value created
by Cambridge Alumni– Stanford $1000 billion?
Billion $ market cap companies
– ARM, – Virata, – CSR, – Autonomy, – Cambridge Antibody
Cambridge Angels
Source: Cambridge Technopole Report
University IPR Policy changed
Until 1985
1986-1990
1991-1995
1996-2000
2001-2002
Cambridge
University
AcornHermann
Hauser
Acquired by Olivetti
Olivetti Research Lab
Andy Hopper
Adaptive Broadband
Cambridge BroadbandAcquired by American Microwave
Acquired by Western Multiplex Corp
Andy Hopper
Peter Warton
IPV (Telemedia Systems)
Andy Hopper
Virata(ATML)
Hermann Hauser
Andy Hopper
Merged with Globespan
Acquired by AT &T
RealVNC
Virtual Network Computing Level5Network
Andy Hopper
ANTAlex van Someren
Nicko van Someren
nCipherAlex van Someren
Nicko van Someren
NetchannelHermann Hauser
Jack Lang
Acquired by
NTL
ARMElement 14
Stan Boland
Simon Knowles
Acquired by Broadcom
Amadeus Capital PartnersHermann Hauser
IQ BioHermann Hauser, Chris Keightley
Part of DAKO Diagnostics
DakoCytomation - Merged with
Cytomation Inc
CDT
Richard Friend
Richard Friend Plastic Logic
Analysys
David Cleevely
Cambridge Network
David Cleevely
Hermann Hauser
Alec Broers
Cambridge 3G
David Cleevely
CPSPeter Duffett-Smith
Polight Technologies
Stephen Elliott
Pavel Krecmer
ART
Daniel Hall
Pilgrim BeartActiveRF
Pilgrim Beart
Antenova
Zeus Technology
Adam Twiss
David Reeves
Cambridge Semiconductor
Gehan Amaratunga
Florin Udrea
MuscatJohn Snyder
Martin Porter Enterprise
AcceleratorJohn Snyder
John SnyderWebtop
Smartlogik
Acquired by Dialog
Small World
Richard Green
Authur Chance
Dick Newell
CADShape Data Charles Lang
Acquired by GE
TensailsRichard Green
VBN online
TerraPrise
Ubisense
Andy Hopper
Steve Pope
Andy Hopper
Andy Ward
Pete Steggles
Simon Elliott
David Cleevely
Electronic Share Information
Acquired by E* Trade
Hermann Hauser
Jack Lang
Top expressJack Lang
Splashpower
Lily Chang
James Hay
Saviso Group
Adam Twiss
Bryan Amesbury
Innovia
Collin Ager
Garraint Davies
Cambridge Interactive Systems
Hermann Hauser
Mike Muller
Tudor Brown
Jamie Urquhart
Dick Newell, Tom Sancha
Figure 1 - The hi-tech start-ups associated with the Cambridge University
Stan Boland
Simon Knowles
Icera
Laser-ScanR. O. Frisch
M-SpatialAdrian Cuthbert
Jon Billing version (Sept 2005) – not to be used or copied without permission
Copyright – Y.M.Myint - y.myint@jbs.cam.ac.uk, Dr. Shailendra Vyakarnam - s.vyakarnam@jbs.cam.ac.uk
Hermann Hauser Graham
O'Keeffe
Richard
Youell
Andrew Dames
Ray
Anderson
Andy
Hopper
Mike Muller
Duncan
Stewart
Chris
Wade
David Cleevely
Gerald
Avison
Stephen
Ives
Richard Friend
Bob
Pettigrew
Peter Wynn
Alex Van Someren
Robert
Hook
Robin
Saxby
Jamie
Urquhart
Laurence Garrett
Pilgrim Beart
Jack Lang
Phil O'Donovan
Robert
Swann
Stephen
Elliott
John Paul
Auton
Gordon Edge
Dr. Peter J. Duffett-Smith
Nigel Berry
Charles Cotton
Simon
Segars
Sir Alec Broers
Michael Ledzion
Richard King
Cambridge Cluster
Common Directorships/Investments
Source: Yupar Myint and Shai Vyarkarnam
Judge Business School
4 links & above
3 links
2 links
1 link
EU-27 Science and Technology Indicators 2007
Source: OECD April 2008
CFO’s viewCFO’s view
Our new project will– Spend $100M+– Have only a small (<1%) chance of success
(recovering investment)– Take 10 years before break-even (average
time from lab to mass product)– Cannibalise our existing customers and
revenue
Stick to the knitting– Until external factors force change– Then use resources to purchase external
innovation– Evolution, not revolution
Big companies should not Big companies should not innovateinnovate
Innovation vs process improvement Big companies need innovation like a hole in the
head– Haven’t recovered from the last one– Too many innovations look like whims
• Confuse staff• Confuse customers
– Managements whim of iron– Risky
• 3x budget, 10 x time• <1% success• Investment? Is this what the shareholders signed up for?
– Risk adverse• People make their careers on stability, not change
– Authority- who can initiate major projects?
SMEs are the engine of innovation– Cheaper to buy when needed– Spin out the trouble makers
Piloting the rocket of radical Piloting the rocket of radical innovation,innovation, Stevens and Burley, Stevens and Burley,
Research Technology Management, Research Technology Management, Mar-Apr 2003Mar-Apr 2003
They analysed the personality of the project leaders in a big chemical company over 10 years
The most creative half of the leaders ran teams that produced 13 times more profit over that time than the least creative half, and completed more projects.
Over half of them were no longer with the company at the end of the period (almost all of the least creative half were still there!)
They looked at WHY the creative leaders did so much better, and decided that it WASN'T because they got better projects, but because they were better at getting round the obstacles in the way.
Moral: Creative people are the most profitable, the least appreciated.
Spin-out – lets get rid of this square peg– Our founder has resigned to spend more time with the research department
Lip serviceLip service
70% of senior managers say innovation is among their top 3 priorities
Less than a third do anything about it– Budget, protect resource, team, support, culture, deal
with failure;– 22% schedule innovation audit as a leadership team
agenda item
Close down or sell research labs as not cost effective
– Bell, IBM, Xerox PARC, BT, Unilever, MoD...
Source: How companies approach innovation: A McKinsey Global Survey Sept 2007
Douglas McGregorDouglas McGregor, "New Concepts of , "New Concepts of Management” 1960Management” 1960
Intellectual creativity cannot be 'programmed' and directed the way we program and direct an assembly line or an accounting department.
This kind of intellectual contribution to the enterprise cannot be obtained by giving orders, by traditional supervisory practices, or by close systems of control.
Even conventional notions of productivity are meaningless with reference to the creative intellectual effort.
Management has not yet considered in any depth what is involved in managing an organization heavily populated with people whose prime contribution consists of creative intellectual effort.
-
Theory X and Theory YTheory X and Theory Y Theory X:
– People don’t want to work and create but must be made to do so
– Motivated by pay and fear
Theory Y:– People want to work and create but are stopped
by the system– Motivated by “higher order” needs, such as
peer esteem and recognition• E.g. Open Source movement
People want to be innovators
but are stopped by the system
Perverse IncentivesPerverse Incentives Governmental Grants, incubators etc
– Market distortion– Create competition for funding, not the
market
Strong IPR regimes– False markets– Create monopolies and slow innovation– Are long monopolies the best way to
reward invention? Instant fixes don’t work
– 10 years from lab to consumer– Culture change takes time
• Inventors are not always mad!
– New financial regimes
ACCTOACCTO Criteria for customer acceptance
– Everett Rogers “The Diffusion of Innovation”• Simon & Schuster International; ISBN: 0743222091
A - relative Advantage– Loose IPR regime; Tax regime
C - Complexity– Can I understand what I need to do?
C –Compatibility– Social, professional
T -Trialability– Can I test it without risk first?
• Sabbaticals• Part-time posts
O - Observability– Can others see the benefits?
• Local heroes, people networks
Role of Universities and Role of Universities and Government as enablers Government as enablers
What Universities and government should do:
– Teach skills• Money management• Legals• Project Planning• Market research
– Mentor• Contacts, exemplars• Friendly infrastructure• Banks, lawyers, patent
agents, accountants etc
– Encourage• Business Plan
competitions• Sabbaticals/part time• Soft entry (eg EIS)• Favourable tax
regimes• Publicity• Networks and heroes
What Universities (and government) should NOT do:
– Run incubators• Better done commercially
– Run Seed funds• Specialist skill
– Run Venture Capital funds
• Competition
– Give large grants• Market distortion
– Grab IPR• No EU University has made
money on IPR licensing
– Discouraging tax regime• (including IPR)
People want to be innovators
but are stopped by the system
Recommended