Simple capacity building... making engagement easy
All too often we complicate processes simply to make our own jobs easier. The Invention Record process is a case in point. We ask more and more questions, and often in language obscure to the academic inventor in order to make sure that we have all bases covered. However this is often off-putting, and reinforces a power curve similar to the long tail, this time with declining engagement.
CC BY SA 3.0 Wikimedia Commons
Consequently Hutch Carpenter, the Vice President of Product at Spigit, coined the term "the innovation mullet" - a play on the 80s hair cut, that was 'simple up front and complex at the back'! (or if you prefer business at the front, party at the back).
But this addresses a serious matter, the Idea of the Screening Threshold:
"The clearest measure of the simplicity of the front-end process is the level of detail required to submit an idea. Organisations set this to meet the requirements of their processes and the people charged with evaluating ideas. This decision has an impact on the level of community participation"1
"Participation will be affected by the amount of detail required on idea submission. Greater detail means a reduced number of ideas. I base this hypothesis on the empirical findings of the web industry, and its testing of conversion rates for site visitors"
The onus needs, therefore, to be on the knowledge transfer office (KTO) to sort out the 'business at the back'. The good news, however, is that much of this can be outsourced which tips the balance (see Opening up to the community section for more information).
The practical implications:
- What is the simplest Innovation Disclosure form we can live with?
- How easy is it for the inventor to interact with the KTO or how well signposted is the KTO?
- Is the process flexible enough to deal with good propositions that don't quite fit the process? Is the stage-gate process too onerous?
- How much decision-making can be outsourced to people better placed to decide, so that we can gather more diverse feed-back and achieve better selection?
The need to develop agile & flexible processes
Many universities have a relatively effective process for the creation of new IP-based businesses. For 'classical technology transfer' these may be effective. However, many models have not been designed to accommodate new business models, be they: social enterprises; knowledge-based businesses; translational health research projects; or projects arising from Arts, Humanities or Social Sciences.
The application of Open Innovation approaches in industry has shone a light on the limitations that overly rigid stage-gate processes for knowledge transfer can have for creating value and impact. If a project does not fit the agreed process, it does not mean that it is the project that is unfit! Openness requires the ability to recognise that heuristic processes are necessarily a starting-point for most projects, but that, often, it will be necessary to develop new processes and occasionally to find ways to progress projects that do not fit process and policy. This is a challenge to any university but essential to achieving maximum impact. Again overly complex and rigid processes will stifle many ventures, losing potential value.
