Continuous invention and innovation involve coming up with streams of
new discoveries over a limited period of time.
Turning out those new discoveries has to occur in a fairly continuous or
systematic way, to meet the many challenges faced by an organization. Successive experimentation is therefore at
the core of continuous invention. For
the kinds of organizations that are typical of technocapitalism---the
experimentalist organizations---continuous invention and innovation are vital
necessities.
Why are
continuous invention and innovation important?
Continuous invention and innovation help reduce the risk and
uncertainty surrounding new products.
Invention is possibly the riskiest of all economic activities. Coming up with a new discovery often
involves much trial and error, with no certainty over outcomes. It is typically impossible to anticipate
whether any new discovery will be successful as a product. Many new products never recover the cost of
their research, even when their technological qualities or advancement are
substantial.
The reduction of risk and uncertainty is particularly important for
organizations facing regulatory hurdles.
In many biotechnology firms, for example, the rate of approval can be as
low as one out of ten thousand new compounds.
Such low odds of success can only be offset by speeding up and turning
out a continuous stream of new discoveries.
As a result, continuous invention and innovation have become an integral
part of corporate strategy.
Adding to the risk and uncertainty of invention is the fact that lead
times between the introduction of a new product and the appearance of its
closest competitor have substantially declined during the past two
decades. Therefore, even products that
can be marketed with some success face the added challenge of one or more
competitors within a very short period after their introduction. This situation can cut the potential
revenues of a new product substantially, forestalling the recovery of its
research costs and its long-term profitability.
Continuous invention and innovation can help remedy this situation by
making it possible to come up with new discoveries and introduce new products
more frequently. A possible result is a
higher chance of more products finding no competitors in their market niches,
even if for limited periods of time.
Thus, the main strengths provided by continuous invention and innovation
lie in speed and numbers. The larger the
number of new discoveries being fielded in the market, and the faster it
happens, the more likely it is that some of them will find no serious
competitors over the short term.
Continuous invention and innovation is also necessary because of the
increasing cost of research. In many
activities, such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, bioinformatics or advanced
microelectronics, laboratory equipment, facilities and other hardware costs are
substantial and can only be recovered by speeding up the pace of invention and
innovation, to turn out as many new products as possible. Similarly, costs for research personnel can
be substantial, given the high level of skills required. For many firms, it is impossible to ignore
the need to pursue continuous invention and innovation, and those that do so
usually do not stay long in business.
Continuous invention and innovation have found widespread adoption in
many research-intensive organizations, but they are most obvious in the kinds
of firms that are representative of technocapitalism. Gene-decoding firms, for example, sustain processes of continuous
invention, discovering new genetic data with the help of supercomputers and
bioinformatics. The large amounts of
new genetic data they discover are then patented. Later, the patented data are licensed to other organizations,
such as pharmaceutical firms, research laboratories and medical technology
companies. Some gene-decoding companies
have therefore become, through continuous invention, both owners and
clearing-houses of discoveries that can be licensed to other research
organizations.
The need to sustain continuous invention and innovation has led some
firms to adopt a system of parallel experimentation in research. Parallelism involves undertaking
non-sequential experimental tasks simultaneously, to speed up the process of
discovery. Parallel experimentation can
be carried out at various locations scattered throughout the world, connected
by telecommunications or the Internet, or it can be performed at a single
facility. It can save a substantial
amount of time for organizations in activities such as biotechnology, where
research and regulatory testing require a multitude of procedures that are
complex and time-consuming.
Parallelism has also been adopted for research involving experimental
designs. In software design, for
example, code for various components of new software can be written
simultaneously, tested and then assembled. The time savings involved can be substantial. Such savings, in turn, allow greater
productivity in the design of new code and, eventually, the marketing of a
larger number of new products. Even
some of the old sectors typical of industrial capitalism have been adopting
parallelism in their research activities.
In automotive design, for example, the design and engineering of new
models is now undertaken simultaneously, cutting the time required to produce a
prototype by as much as 80 percent, compared to the previous sequential
approach.
The need to sustain continuous invention and innovation has also been
partly responsible for the adoption of modularity in research. The modular approach is most relevant for
the invention and innovation of complex systems. It divides research departments into units (or modules) to
undertake projects that will become part of a larger system. Basic rules are set, that will allow each of
the projects to be linked later on as they reach completion. Invention and innovation can thereby occur
simultaneously, by compartmentalizing projects into the units. Modularity can be found in research related
to complex systems, such as the design and engineering of supercomputers,
aerospace and telecommunications equipment.
The adoption of continuous invention has also made it possible to
increase the carrying capacity of many products, such as microchips and
computer memory disks, over short periods of time. In microchips, for example, the exponential increases in capacity
that have occurred with regularity during the past two decades (known as
Moore’s Law), are largely a product of this phenomenon. Those exponential increases have, in turn,
created a technological race from which companies involved in advanced
microchip research cannot escape, except at the cost of failure.
In many companies, the pressures to speed up invention and innovation
have led to dualism in the organization of research. As a result, some firms undertake invention in what may be called
a first-mover research unit or group, where intensive experimentation
occurs. Such units are usually charged
with finding discoveries that can be patented.
Much uncertainty and risk is involved in their operations, since it is
difficult to anticipate outcomes.
Moreover, those outcomes, even when they can be patented, may not become
successful products. Those units’
operations can therefore be costly and very risky, but are vital if a company
is to have any chance of coming up with its own new discoveries.
A second kind of research operation, the second-mover group or unit,
then becomes involved with innovation.
Its activities may, for example, involve tweaking existing products to
improve their performance to the level of competitors. In other cases, the controversial practice
of reverse engineering competitors’ products may also be part of its scope,
looking for opportunities to imitate successful new products. Despite the potential ethical and legal
pitfalls involved, the financial rewards of second-mover innovation have often
been substantial. It has, for example,
helped some companies avoid the long, costly and uncertain process of coming up
with entirely new products of their own, by unfairly profiting from others’ work. In other cases, second-mover innovation has
helped a company’s own existing products become more competitive by improving
their performance.
These are but a few examples of how continuous invention and innovation
are being introduced in various activities of our time. From the platform of experience this
phenomenon is building up, new strategies aimed at supporting technocapitalism
are likely to emerge. A major problem
is the question of how much these features of technocapitalism---along with the
new technologies and sectors that emerge---will be taken over by oligopolistic
corporations. Oligopolies may reorient
these aspects of continuous invention and innovation to preserve and protect
their market power, rather than to generate the new technologies and activities
that will most benefit humankind.
For publications on invention and innovation, and related topics,
please see the Publications
section of this website.
Copyright © Luis Suarez-Villa