When an organisation decides to invest in innovation, it often activates not only a technical or strategic process, but also an internal dynamic that complicates decision-making. What at first appears to be a clear commitment soon becomes a chain of uncertainties, cross-validations and multiple opinions. It is as if the organisational chart stretches vertically and widens horizontally. Where once there was a clear direction, new levels of decision-making appear… more departments are involved… new voices feel the need to evaluate, question or even redefine the proposal. And while this cross-cutting interest in innovation processes shows that the subject matters, it also introduces noise, friction and, often, paralysis… so much analysis!!!!
Innovation managers know this all too well. They face the daily challenge of justifying why it is necessary to invest in an idea that has not yet shown a return, and explaining why it is not possible to continue doing the same old thing, even if it seems safer. They live with tight budgets, uncertain timelines and the need to align expectations with multiple stakeholders, each with their own vision of what it means to ‘innovate’.
In this context, many key decisions end up depending more on the mood of the day than on the strategic logic that should support the decision. Innovation then becomes a sort of corporate game of chance. Like when, as children, we used to pluck a daisy to find out if someone loved us:
Generate by artificial intelligence
‘Now they approve of me… now they don’t. Now they see it clearly… now they don’t. Now we invest… now we don’t’.’
Although it may seem anecdotal, this dynamic has real consequences. Innovation cannot depend on chance, nor on a succession of subjective ‘yeses’ or ‘noes’. Because while there is doubt, the market moves on, opportunities expire, technologies consolidate and the one that improves competitiveness is someone else. And the most worrying thing is that when this logic is repeated many times, it ends up discouraging the teams that drive innovation from within. Frustration builds up, motivation drops, and what could have been a culture of change towards organisational prosperity becomes a culture of restraint and unease.
This is where technology centres play a key role. Our mission is not to replace business decision-making, but to reduce the risk that surrounds it. We act as agents that provide objectivity, knowledge and technical validation in the different phases of innovation projects:
We develop proofs of concept to anticipate the viability of a solution before a large investment is made.
We provide data and evidence to support decisions with greater confidence.
We connect science and technology with the real challenges of the productive fabric.
We create safe experimentation environments, where it is possible to fail quickly and cheaply, learn and adjust before scaling up.
In short, we help transform those ‘no’s’ born of fear or uncertainty into ‘yes’s’ backed by knowledge and long-term vision. But in addition to technical support, we help with something equally important: building organisational trust in innovation.
“Technology centres helps on building organisational trust in innovation”
We help to create the necessary framework of trust in the innovation teams that already exist within the company, so that little by little the cultural change that the markets are demanding can be created. We create confidence in the innovation teams: in their judgement, in their knowledge of the business and in their ability to explore, test and build new solutions.
Because innovation should not require redesigning the organisational chart every time something new is proposed. It should not multiply approval levels or cause a cascade of unnecessary revisions. If something has to change in the structure of a company as a result of an innovation project, it should be to enter a new market, launch a new line of business, or scale a differential product that did not exist before.
Innovation processes are not born to complicate the structure of an organisation and much less to complicate the people who are part of the organisation. Innovation will prepare you for the future. And for this, the formula is clear: autonomy, method and expert support. Innovation is not a luxury or a risky bet. It is a strategic necessity to remain relevant. And like any strategy, it must be managed with rigour, with structure and with allies that provide real value. That is what we at the technology centres are here for: to walk alongside those who are leading change, to reduce uncertainty and to help turn good ideas into tangible results.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for all of us
In a geo-political and socio-economic environment such as ours, in which the industrial and business environment requires liquid managers with the ability to make decisions that adapt to the environment like water to the container that holds it, in which unlearning and relearning is worth more than the knowledge acquired so far, in which action plans must consider exploitation and exploration activities at the same level of importance. In this fast-paced world, the rest of agents in the innovation ecosystem -technology centres and research agents, public administrations, and society-, need to introduce routine actions that balance the objective risk-return ratio for each entity. Routine actions repeated by each one of them, reinforcing the role of each one of them. The role of each agent is a subject I dealt with in the post “Every stick hold its own”
We need routines that reduce the level of uncertainty in the environment in which we move, routines that allow us to make quick decisions with the addequate risk to the rentability we want to achieve, routines that respond to how, what, who, where and why of each value proposition.
These routines begin in the formation of universities, where the seed must be sown so that the routines begin to take root and the ecosystem allows it to grow in fertile soil and reproduce itself and leave a legacy.
These routines, although they may seem antonyms of innovation because of their repetitive and predictable nature, are in in fact the pillars that support the possibility of exploring the unknown. In a dynamic innovation ecosystem, routines are not simply inert habits; they are the scaffolding that allows us to experiment, learn and evolve with purpose. Like the musician who rehearses the same scales day after day to improvise masterfully in concert, routines in innovation are the disciplined rehearsal that precedes disruptive genius.
“Routines in innovation are the disciplined rehearsal that precedes disruptive genius”
In this context, routines should not be confused with rigidity. Rather, they are organisational patterns that provide stability without sacrificing the flexibility needed to adapt to change. For example, design thinking processes or agile methodologies, while structured, leave room for creativity and iteration. These practices demonstrate that innovation doesn´t emerge from absolute chaos, but from a balance between order and freedom.
In addition, routines play a crucial role in knowledge transfer. Universities and technology centres, especially, can structure training programmes for individuals and companies, as well as collaborative projects as the request of CIOS (Chief Innovation Officer) that turn exploration activity into practical and scalable aplications in a systematic way. In this sense, the routine becomes the mechanism that facilitates the cross-fertilisation of ideas and the market.
On the other hand, in a world that demands quick responses and effecetive solutions, routines help to reduce the friction between creativity and implementation. These routines not only clarify the steps needed to execute an idea by answering to how, what, who, where and why, but also align all actors involved, from companies and public administrations to researchers and technologists, in a common direction.
The key lies in designing routines that encourage continuous learning and systematic experimentation. This means unlearning what no longer works and developing new habits that incorporate diversity, technology and sustainability as core principles. In this way, the innovation ecosystem will be consistent with its purpose and will not only be able to adapt to the challenges of the present, but also to anticipate the opportunities of the future.
Ultimately, routines in innovation are not an end in themselves, but the means to generate sustainable impact. Routines reinforce the role of each agent, balance the risk-return trade-off and promote the establishment of a culture of collaboration and growth. These repetitive practices become the engine that drives transformational change. Because, paradoxically, true innovation is born of constancy: the constancy to do, to try, to fail and to try again.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for all of us.
In my previous post I commented how innovation ecosystems, if they aren´t well coordinated, can become real hotbeds of “de-technology”. This happens when the agents that make them up do not have clear roles or do not pursue a common objective. The lack of cohesion generates inconsistence and inefficiencies that, although sometimes they aren´t perceive directly, always end up affecting everyone.
It is therefore essential that research organisations, technology centres, public administrations, companies and society know that each one of us plays a role in the value chain of the technological innovation ecosystem and that the sole objective is to generateof wealth and prosperity in the regions through the exploitation of technologies.
Technological innovation that creates prosperity is not the result of science, technology or the market in isolation, but of a well-synchronised process in which each actor assumes its responsibility with conviction and commitment.
It is the role of the public administration to grease the innovation system by promoting innovative technological initiatives that support the fulfiment of the roles of each agent.
Research organisations, being leaders in basic science or research, the closest to technological disruption.They should be encouraged to achieve high levels of high impact sicentific publications and ensure long scientific careers in national public research organisations, initiated in universities with programmes focused on the demand of the research system.
Technology centres, as key agents in incremental innovation (applied research), also value the science of research organisation and work for its transfer. Their position must be consolidated with a key commitment, especially on the part of regional goverments, that reflecting their commitment to this transfer agent and bringing technological advances even closer to companies and society.
Companies, as leaders of innovation processes. Incentives shoukd be provided with more attractive tax rebates and deductions for their exploration policies, for the recruitment of university talent that stimulates the adoption of technological innovations in companies and allows the circle to be closed with the valorisation (use or exploitation) of the technology generated in the ecosystem itself.
Finally, the citizen should not be asked but rewarded with an economic and industrial policy centred on innovation policy, settled and long-term, with routes aligned with the general interests of growth and employment and a trade balance that imports talent and exports technology and not the other way around.
It is the role of the administration to grease the wheels and the role of all of us to generate habits of innovation in the ecosystem, repeating over and over again the role so that we are believed, because only in this way will we manage to grow and evolve in an orderly and sustainable way over time, building a future in which technology is not only a tool, but a driving force for collective progress.
Ultimately, every stick must hold its own in this complex ecosystem of technological innovation. If each agent plays its part and aligns itself with the common goal of generating prosperity and wealth through technology, we will not only avoid inefficiencies that are silently suffered, but also build a robust, competitive and sustainable system.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for all.
Lotus flower has the capacity of survive on difficult environments, such as pantanous areas, hence it is frecuently associated with the complex vital processes that human being should face.
Most technology centres have been told phrases like “tell me about it and I´ll tell you if it adapts to what I need“, “find me a grant and we´ll set up a project that adapts” or ” when you have developed it and it works, we´ll talk”. These types of phrases are nothing more than a demonstration of, in general, the low innovative culture that we have in our environment, and of the non-existent strategic business policies based on innovation.
Technology centres are expert agents in incremental innovations, who are beholden to the demands of the market and who aim to generate social and economic benefit in the innovation systems to which we belong. We are, therefore, fundamental agents for achieving prosperity in the regions, given that our mission is to use science, transform it into technological solutions and transfer it to the market so that it can be exploited and generate value.
“Technology centres are fundamental agents for achieving prosperity in the regions”
We need each agent in the innovation system to fulfil its role because if each agent operates freely, in a market of perfect competition, where the only variable that is perceived to be considered is price, inconsistencies and inefficiencies arise that in many cases aren´t perceived in the short term, but in all cases are suffereed in the long term. Thus, innovation ecosystems can become real crops of “de-technology” of “de-valuation” and ultimately of “de-innovation” if each agent is not clear about our function and sphere of action, if we don´t operate seeking role monopolies and if a common objective not pursued as an ecossytem by all the agents that participate in the ecosystem.
Without going into who came first, the chicken or the egg, there are several examples that demonstrate the relationship between the competitiveness and prosperity of regions and the existence of strongly rooted technology centres, with a clearly defined role and supported by the ecosystem:
These are ecosystems where innovation is economically and fiscally incentivised, and where there is a real culture of change for prosperity.
Ecosystems that have a clear commitment on the part of public administrations to innovation, piloting strategic projects based on technology, investing in basal funding for technology centres and with monopolies on the roles of each agent that achieve the efficiency of the ecosystem.
These are ecosystems with tax treatments that incentivise the generation of blue oceans in the long term and the purchase of technological innovation from their own agents in the short and medium term.
They are culturally advanced ecosystems that seek for technological independence and therefore autonomy in decision-making.
Ecosystems with mature technology and knowledge valorisation networks ready to exploit these assets.
Ecosystems that create own talent and attracts foreign talent.
Knowing, therefore, the environmental variables that affect the establishment of an adequate innovation ecosystem: sustainable and prosperous, it is the duty of all the agents that make up the innovation ecosystems to fight to achieve fertile innovation environments, well equipped with resources and innovative culture, which serve as water and fertiliser, and not swamps in which each agent has to become lotus flowers seeking survival in an environment in which we compete on prices and which distances us from seeking the prosperity of our own regions, which can only be achieved by contriuting value according to our role.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for us.
‘Innflation’ (innovation + innflation) is the phenomenon whereby an increase in the supply of R&D is not reflected in a reduction in its price because there is a stimulated demand for the purchase of that R&D.
It´s the phenomenon that moves us away from dull innovation systems characterised by continuous price reduction due to oversupply and allows us to have thriving innovation systems characterised by long-term transfer relationships so that the R&D generated is transformed into innovation when successfully exploited.
A dull innovation system, in which the phenomenon of ‘innflation’ doesn´t occur, is characterised by the fact that the public resources allocated to the generation of R&D supply are public expenditure, because the agents that generate that supply are stressed and compete in a red ocean in terms of price. These are innovation systems dependent on the outside world with low and decreasing levels of productivity, characterised by the flight of talent.
“Dull innovation system. Innovation system dependent on the outside world with low and decreasing levels of productivity, characterised by the flight of talent.”
It is therefore a question of implementing dual innovation policies that make it possible to sustain the supply of R&D, but also to stimulate the demand for R&D so that public resources are invested and not spent, to compete on value by creating blue oceans and not on price, undervaluing innovation, to have stimulated and efficient R&D agents, to use our own technology and promote our technological independence, and to have an impact on increasing productivity and retaining talent.
Stimulating demand for R&D must be done through systemic policies with a single, comprehensive visionthat includes:
Attractive tax deduction policies to stimulate new investors in innovation.
Industrial policy to increase the m2 of production plants equipped with their own technology (supply of R&D generated)
Education and employment policies to create and retain talent.
Communication and information policy to create culture, but, above all, innovation discipline.
Policies for the creation of technology-based companies based on the supply of R&D generated.
Stimulating demand will maintain long-term transfer relationships and have a positive effec on ‘innflation’ levels.
Innovate for you, innovate for me, innovate for us.
