In the "Q"

As long-time subscribers to McKinsey Quarterly's email newsletter, we enjoy the in-depth analyses featured on their website.  We'll continue to alert readers to useful and relevant content we encounter through this channel (links back to the Quarterly site require free registration for access to the entire article.)  We cited a report from the "Q" earlier this month, and now we are delighted that today's inbox brings credible third-party validation of one of our central theses: invention is science, innovation is economics.  

Excerpted from his recent book, Amar Bhidé makes a compelling case that despite falling behind rapidly emerging BRIC economies in secondary and higher education in STEM competencies and pure research generally, the United States enjoys a competitive advantage in applying discoveries from the laboratory to real-world uses.

Technological innovations, especially high-level ones, usually have limited economic or commercial importance unless complemented by lower-level innovations. Breakthroughs in solid-state physics, for example, have value for the semiconductor industry only if accompanied by new microprocessor designs, which themselves may be largely useless without plant-level tweaks that make it possible to produce these components in large quantities. A new microprocessor’s value may be impossible to realize without new motherboards and computers, as well.

New know-how and products also require interconnected, nontechnological innovations on a number of levels. A new diskless (thin-client) computer, for instance, generates revenue for its producer and value for its users only if it is marketed effectively and deployed properly. Marketing and organizational innovations are usually needed; for example, such a computer may force its manufacturer to develop a new sales pitch and materials and its users to reorganize their IT departments.

Bhidé makes these observations in the context of anxieties in the policy and media communities about America losing it's "edge", and his concerns about resorting to protectionism or diverting scarce resources to pure research activities, or "what the economists Sylvia Ostry and Richard Nelson call techno-nationalism and techno-fetishism".

Techno-nationalists and techno-fetishists oversimplify innovation by equating it with discoveries announced in scientific journals and with patents for cutting-edge technologies developed in university or commercial research labs. Since they rarely distinguish between the different levels and kinds of know-how, they ignore the contributions of the other players—contributions that don’t generate publications or patents.

They oversimplify globalization as well—for example, by assuming that high-level ideas and know-how rarely if ever cross national borders and that only the final products made with it are traded. Actually, ideas and technologies move from country to country quite easily, but much final output, especially in the service sector, does not. The findings of science are available—for the price of learned books and journals—to any country that can use them. Advanced technology, by contrast, does have commercial value because it can be patented, but patent owners generally don’t charge higher fees to foreigners. In the early 1950s, what was then a tiny Japanese company called Sony was among the first licensors of Bell Labs’ transistor patent, for $50,000.

In the current economic climate, it is critical that resources and regulations be more closely aligned with the successful commercialization of new science, rather than deep, long-range investments in adding to the store of human knowledge.  As we have seen, the economies that benefit most from commercial application of new technology are not necessarily the ones in which it was patented.  License revenue and royalties create few new jobs.

Since innovation is not a zero-sum game among nations, and high-level science and engineering are no more important than the ability to use them in mid- and ground-level innovations, the United States should reverse policies that favor the one over the other, and it should cease to worry that the forward march of the rest of the human race will reduce it to ruin.

Immigration policies that favor high-level research by preferring highly trained engineers and scientists to people who hold only bachelor’s degrees are misguided too. By working in, say, the IT departments of retailers and banks, immigrants who don’t have advanced degrees probably make as great a contribution to the US economy as those who do. Likewise, the US patent system is excessively attuned to the needs of R&D labs and not enough to those of innovators developing mid- and ground-level products, which often don’t generate patentable intellectual property under current rules and are often threatened by easily obtained high-level patents.

Even factoring in outsourced manufacturing and back-office services, the most (and best) net new jobs are created by innovators who find a crying need and fill it with creative solutions fashioned from new discoveries and existing technologies alike.  As we've pointed out elsewhere, an innovative company isn't necessarily introducing widgets, but is also applying novel thinking and imagination to improving established business processes for greater effectiveness or efficiency.  Cloud computing, for example, offers familiar software capabilities, but in a new form factor and delivery model.  That's not the sort of thing you invent in a lab.