Nserc presentation
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
1 j'aime•82 vues
Slides for NSERC information session
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (19)
Similaire à Nserc presentation
Similaire à Nserc presentation (20)
Plus de Lassonde School of Engineering
Plus de Lassonde School of Engineering (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Nserc presentation
- 1. Importance of Commercializing University Research Technology Commercialization and Working with Industry Partner Andrew Maxwell P.Eng.
- 2. Increasing focus on commercialization in grant applications
- 3. We understand technology – but not always technology adoption
- 4. Need to understand the difference between incremental and disruptive innovation
- 5. Design Thinking Technology Centric Using Technology as a Competitive Advantage
- 6. Creative Problem Solving Process (CPS) DesignThinking StageGate RealOptions, PortfolioApproaches Jobs-to-be-Done InnovationAdoption &-Diffusion, Behaviors Epicentersof Innovation, BusinessModels LeanStartup CompetitiveAdvantage We used different approaches at different stages of innovation journey
- 7. What jobs can the technology do?
- 8. What is the compelling value proposition?
- 9. How can you use a new business model to overcome barriers to adoption?
- 10. •Help in preparing a grant request •Help in finding industry partners •Help in doing customer discovery or market research •Funding to get technologies from lab to market •Access to IP advice and guidance •Graduate course in Technology Commercialization
Notes de l'éditeur
- Today I would like to talk about innovation and specifically the type of innovation that derives from university research. I want to talk about why it’s important, to explain why we are doing a bad job and why this should be of concern to everyone working in an academic research environment. I will then share with you my problem finding research and provides insights into solutions that are now being adopted at York and around the world. I will explain how we are gathering information on the effectiveness of this approach, and how the insights we are gathering set up the next phase of this research.
- NSERC Discovery grant “NSERC wording -Proposed research program is clearly presented, is extremely original and innovative and is likely to have impact by leading to groundbreaking advances in the area and/or leading to a technology or policy that addresses socioeconomic or environmental needs.” NSERC STRATEGIC Partnership Grants “It is expected that these grants will generate new knowledge/technology with the strong potential to strengthen Canada’s industrial base, generate wealth, create employment and/or influence Canadian public policy” Innovation is important in the research context, as research commercialization or translation) is increasingly a component of the funding process, as funding agencies are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the return on investment from academic research.
- Evidence of the problem can be seen in three simple pieces of data: - 92% of disruptive innovations that emerge from research never reach a first customer - 80% of university technology transfer offices operate at a loss - 75% of university commercialization activity focuses on licensing In combination, we can conclude that: - either most research is not suitable for use by customers, or that we do not know how to offer it in a way that attracts users - that university TTOs are not designed or resourced to achieve rates of success that enable them to achieve commercial viability - that there is a disconnect between university licensing activities and the increasing focus on building regional economic activity This sets up the fundamental problem – what causes this poor performance?
- Before discussing the nature of the problem, the challenges we face, and identifying some solutions, it is important to recognize that there are two fundamentally different types of innovation – incremental innovation and disruptive innovation. As the differences between the two highlight some of the false assumptions and challenges associated with technology commercialization. The difference between incremental innovation, which offer slight improvements in performance over existing technologies, and disruptive innovation, which offer new levels of performance, and often create levels of performance that enable new applications and markets – is the impact each has on how people behave. Incremental innovation primarily replace an existing technology solution, to offer slightly enhanced features or increased benefits. Most importantly, they require minimal changes in the way the technologies are offered to users, or in how users adopt the new technology. In contrast, disruptive innovations, are called disruptive because they disrupt the marketplace, creating new products, services, processes and business models – and changing, in fact disrupting, what people and organizations do, and how they behave. It is this focus on behaviours that offers a key insight into the challenges of technology commercialization and the poor success rates – and offers some pointers for my embedded research approach
- In general – innovators assume a specific application for their technology, without considering other technology applications. For example, LED lights were originally designed to save energy, but their long-life, and IP controllability, allowed them to be installed on the outside of buildings for decoration. This moved the product from a replacement product for existing bulbs (with a much less frequent replacement time) to create new markets – where the technology can be used to fulfil a different job. Attacking this external building market requires a fundamental difference approach to marketing replacement high-efficiency bulbs. This is important – as in the case of disruptive technologies, a first user will be more motivated to adopted, when there are no direct alternatives
- We define the value proposition of a new technology as the motivation for a user to adopt the new technology, based on assessing the sum of all the benefits adopting that technology (financial, security, reliability and emotional benefits) minus all of the costs associated with adoption (costs, risk, ….). Importantly, as most of us are unwilling to change behaviours – due to innovation inertia – adoption by a user requires a compelling value proposition that makes the adoption decision easy, it must also offer more value than the other innovation projects the user is currently considering.
- The third step I want to mention, is the idea that trying an innovative solution in a large organization is a lot more complex than persuading a single user. In fact, as we know from strategic selling, there are multiple stakeholders who may influence the adoption decision. We often forget impact that financial person can have on a purchase decision, or the influence of health and safety on the decision to adopt a new piece of equipment. Analyzing each of the stakeholders, and identifying their barriers to adoption, might suggest alternate business models that would be more likely to be successful. For example, concerns about the reputational risk of trying a new technology might be addressed by purchasing the technology through a partner, while reliability concerns might be addressed by a try-before you-buy approach. Overcoming barriers to adoption, can often be addressed by an alternate business model, which can mean that the technology itself has to be modified.