9 Takeaways from Interviews with Innovation Experts

Before I get to the takeaways, I must admit that it was not easy to choose them. There were many more ideas that stirred up my mind, but I had to limit myself. Nine takeaways is already a lot, I guess I exceeded a limit of typical top five ??

Takeaway #1: Trust is the top priority in collaborative innovation projects

This is probably one thing that pretty much every expert I talked to mentioned. And it might sound like something obvious, but it has such immense importance for collaborative projects that it needs to be mentioned first.

Many companies have been building relationships with their partners for a long time. They work with certain university teams, they work with certain technology transfer offices, labs, etc. That’s how you build trust: through constant communication and working on numerous projects together.

However, innovation challenges we face vary. Often, especially when it comes to solving tough problems and coming up with radical innovations, you need to cooperate with teams you have never worked with before. And building trust becomes a real issue.

I know it myself. The nature of our business model requires collaborating with new teams constantly. We have a limited time to achieve this level of connection that is needed to start trusting each other.

I believe it is one of the main challenges for any intermediary that works with such innovation projects. And it’s difficult, but it’s not impossible to solve this challenge.

It’s solved by meeting each other offline, if possible. It’s solved by communicating not only about the project we’re working on, but also about other interests. It's solved by having conversations, not official ones.

It's also solved by being open and honest, a little bit less "corporate" and serious, by being more empathetic and passionate about what you do.

I also think that sometimes it makes sense to take a leap of faith and start with a small collaborative project together.

I remember an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation when Captain Picard suggested to Ferengi conducting a collaborative mission to study what was happening with their vessels. The trust between two species meeting for the first time needed to be established, and the first step was crucial.

Obviously, you don’t need to work with someone like Ferengi, it’s better to choose partners who seem more trustworthy. But trust is about taking risks, and “without risk, you will never be rich”. I talk about risks in my last takeaway below.

Takeaway #2: Process is important

I was talking to Joaquin Prado who helps organizations to develop standards. Standards development means that you have to be involved in a project with a number of often competing companies, which makes everything quite challenging.?So, there’s no better organization to teach you collaboration than a standards development organization.

And here, what Joaquin mentions is that a well-established process is essential to make things work.?This is true for any project, but especially for collaborative ones.

I have been talking a lot about having a process for collaborative projects myself, so I fully support his opinion. I’d like to reinforce this point.

You must have a clear goal and clear steps that you need to follow in order to make progress and achieve your goal.

We need to be flexible, of course, and sometimes it’s important to change the plan. But to change something, we need to have it in place first.

If the requirements are discussed at the first stage of the project, you should make sure that by the second stage you have them defined and you’re not coming back to change them again and again.

Exceptions can occur (for example, we have a new regulation introduced just recently), but they should be critical enough for us to change the process. Otherwise, your project has no chance to end, especially with the results you’re hoping for.

However, I strongly believe that not all processes are good for implementation ?? But that's the topic for another conversation.

Takeaway #3: Make it simple

This is something that we discussed with Rob Kirschbaum in his interview about open innovation.?

When Rob was talking about the open innovation model they introduced at DSM, he mentioned that it was a one-pager that they developed. It is a simple, yet beautiful scheme that is easy to understand and easy to remember. It took just one look at the scheme, and I was able to reproduce it in my mind.

I believe it helps get everyone on board with the idea. It also simplifies and speeds up decision-making processes on each step. Thus, the company operates more efficiently.

Innovation activities are already too complicated: you need to create something entirely new, which inherently cannot be simple. Adding complexity to the process may shift the focus from the main research activities to the process itself.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this takeaway these days, especially after I learned about research on how academic writing, particularly in social sciences, has become more difficult to read. And also with regard to some process changes that I've been witnessing lately.

And while I’m personally up for a challenge, I can’t stop thinking about whether it’s necessary to add this complexity. Does it really help to achieve what we want?

Takeaway #4: Opposition is necessary

This insight comes from my interview with Dr. Rolf Albach , and I love it. Don’t get me wrong, I love all the takeaways, but I’ve been thinking about this one for a while and I’m thinking about it every time when I stumble upon an opinion that contradicts my beliefs.

We were discussing it in the context of policies, but Rolf mentioned that he finds it important to have opposition in business as well.

It’s a valuable takeaway for collaborative innovation projects.

Innovations are often not accepted by people around initially. We can find many examples when groundbreaking inventions were initially dismissed as impractical.

When innovating, it's easy to be wrong because no one truly knows the right answer. So it’s crucial to hear opinions opposite to yours. ?

There's also a threat of cognitive biases occurring during collaborative innovation projects, which I described in one of my recent articles. These biases, like for example Groupthink, lead to poor decision making. One solution to mitigate them is to find a person who isn’t afraid to voice dissenting views.

In general, closing our minds to information that challenges our beliefs means we can easily overlook valuable insights.

In order to develop innovations, in order to create new unique solutions, we need to be open to opposite opinions. Every innovation, by itself, challenges our old views and established norms.

Takeaway #5: Industry needs people that would solve their problems

This is something that I took from the interviews with Tomas Zednicek and Dr. Rolf Albach .?

As I'm used to working with collaborative research projects for industry, it was always somehow obvious to me, that in such projects you have a clear challenge and criteria to be met. And research partners involved should provide solutions aligned with these criteria.

Obviously, as we're talking about innovative solutions, it's not guaranteed that every research partner will succeed. But they should at least do their best to show the result as close to the requested as possible.

Otherwise, what’s the point of organizing a project?

The fact that it is often a big issue for companies to get a prototype to work with during collaborative projects with universities used to escape my mind. I just didn’t see a bigger picture. But I see it now.

So this takeaway would be relevant for academic researchers who want to collaborate with industry.?

Obviously, projects in academic labs might give more creative freedom. And thinking about scaling and following too many restrictions might not look like fun.?

However, we need to remember that solutions developed for business should be practical. Companies are looking for something that they can commercialize, revenue and profit are one of their key goals.

So for business, it’s not only about the technology itself, it’s about delivering a product that meets customer needs.

Personally, I believe that making academic innovations scalable and ready for commercialization is an interesting challenge in its own right. And you can still be creative within constraints.

Takeaway #6: We need to bridge the gap between academia and industry

Another takeaway I’ve been thinking about a lot this year.?

There are different ways that can be used to bring innovation from academia to industry.?

First of all, there are startups. But launching a startup is not an easy thing. It’s not only about scaling the idea and starting production. We expect an academic researcher to take on roles as a manager, marketer, accountant, human resource specialist, sales manager, etc.

Then, it’s about finding capital and other resources to build a final product. Then, there are regulations you’re supposed to comply with. Then, it’s about building an effective team. And many more other things.

How many researchers are prepared for the life of an entrepreneur?

Now, another way to bridge the gap is involving technology transfer offices. This topic came up in my detailed discussion with Tomas Zednicek .?

Technology transfer offices are supposed to play a big role in bridging the gap between academia and industry. In theory. In practice, it doesn’t always work that way.

I rarely collaborate with technology transfer offices. Yes, for things like IP or some agreements we need to sign, though often I manage all the legal stuff via the professor directly. But I will not contact a technology transfer office when I need a team for the project, I don't find it as an effective way to connect.

Honestly, I don’t see the logic behind having technology transfer offices in universities. I don’t see any motivation for them when they are a part of academia.

Even if we set motivation aside, technology transfer offices do not really address the core issue. The gap between academia and industry is not just about connections but about technology drawbacks, scalability challenges.?

There’s another approach to bridge the gap, which I found very interesting.?

When I went to Münster for an annual meeting of the German Association for Chemistry and Economics, there was a representative of Fraunhofer Research Institution for Battery Cell Production FFB. They are working on a pilot plant in order to scale up scientific discoveries in battery technologies.?

I think it would be great to have more projects like that, in batteries and other areas as well.?

Such projects are all about collaboration of different parties: research institutions, universities, government and business. It’s challenging to organize them, but they have potential.

I am also looking forward to helping solve this problem myself. I have some ideas which I'd like to implement soon.

Takeaway #7: More than 90% of the patents some companies file are never used

This insight comes from my interview with Dr. Christoph Appert .

Of course, I knew that many patents are not used. And the situation might be different for different industries. But the numbers are shocking, right??

Imagine how much money was spent on all these patents, how much research was done, how many new insights they hold. Couldn’t there be a better way to utilize them?

Licensing is one of the solutions here which allows others to benefit from technologies that your company cannot benefit from. It is connected to a broader concept of open innovation.

Open innovation doesn’t work in one direction only, when the company uses external sources for new developments. The company can also share knowledge and technology with others and get back royalties, new partnerships, and good reputation.

Will companies become more open to this kind of mutually beneficial knowledge sharing than they are now? When thinking about common challenges some industries, countries, and even continents have, I believe it might be a good way to deal with them. New empowering technologies like AI would also benefit from knowledge sharing.

However, it’s a very sensitive topic, and it’s a lot about trust (getting back to our first takeaway).

Takeaway #8: We need to think about new ways to deal with patent protection.

This is another highlight from the interview with Dr. Christoph Appert . It’s crazy to think that patents are still filed in a paper-based way and that the innovation must be hand-drafted.

I wonder how patents and the way we work with them will change in the near future.?

Obviously, we’re talking about how much AI will influence this area. I asked ChatGPT if it uses patent databases as a source of information, and it said ‘No.’ There are tools that help search patent directories, but they don’t seem to generate new ideas based on patents. Probably.

But how might open access to millions of patents affect the future of protecting knowledge? Will the use of patent databases by AI tools influence decisions around filing patents? Could there be fewer patents filed and more reliance on company secrets?

These are important questions that also touch on laws and regulations.

Personally, I’m also very curious about how blockchain technology will be used for patent protection. It could provide a more secure and transparent way to track innovation and it might be very valuable in more complex collaborative projects that involve multiple research partners. It’s definitely something to watch in the coming years.

Takeaway #9: Without risk, you will never be rich

This is an insight from my interview with Rob Kirschbaum . Nothing new, but I feel like it’s a great one to wrap up this article.?

When we talk about risks in business, we often think of startups. They’re seen as the ones carrying the burden and are usually acknowledged as risk-takers.

Obviously, taking risks is more difficult for large companies. They have more at stake: their people, revenues, stakeholders, customers, and regulators. It’s a lot of responsibility, and there’s often much to lose.

Still, sometimes it’s crucial to take a risk. Even for large enterprises. If you don’t play, you don’t win.

Innovation is about risk. It’s about investing in something that might not pay off. It’s about crossing boundaries, leaving old limitations behind. And you don’t know what lies beyond those limits.

The world is changing right now, and despite our fears of risk, it is necessary. We have to take that leap, there’s no other way forward.

In the end, I just want to say that I feel like we should talk more about innovation management, approaches and methods we use in different companies and organizations. We should share our practices more openly. We still have a lot to learn from each other in such a complex, yet very exciting field.

List of the interviews:

Interview with Dr. Christoph Appert about intellectual property: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/intellectual-property-rights-innovation-management-dr-shvyndzikava-wgj4c/?trackingId=Js05e%2FQbDwIzHittb0Ie8A%3D%3D

Interview with Tomas Zednicek about university-industry collaboration and passive components: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/interview-tomas-zednicek-founder-president-european-liza-shvyndzikava-64z8f/?trackingId=aGTehVgLSnKF7DOTFsxfjw%3D%3D

Interview with Joaquin Prado about standards development organizations: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/talking-standards-development-organizations-interview-shvyndzikava-rwlif/?trackingId=vQ4pndUitEO9aih1%2ByFMiA%3D%3D

Interview with Rob Kirschbaum about Open Innovation: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/talking-open-innovation-rob-kirschbaum-liza-shvyndzikava-mttbf/?trackingId=jDnn2BrrCbPaP7jQ3ZQBdQ%3D%3D

Interview with Dr. Rolf Albach about academia-industry partnership, young generation of scientists and policies: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/talking-dr-rolf-albach-university-industry-ssbd-liza-shvyndzikava-gc9tf/?trackingId=yp7WCzTAtanLoq1SE3JzNQ%3D%3D