by Adam Hartung | Nov 5, 2012 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Lock-in, Science
Many people equate spending on R&D with investing in innovation. The logic goes that R&D spending is lab spending, and out of labs come innovations. Hence, those that spend a lot on R&D are innovative.
That is faulty logic.
This chart shows R&D spending from the top 20 companies in 2011:
Chart reproduced with permission of Business Insider
Think of your own list of companies that are providing innovations which change your work, or life. Would you include Apple? Amazon? Facebook? Google? Genentech? (Here's the link to Fast Company's 50 most innovative for 2012). Note that none of these companies appear on the list of top R&D spenders.
On the other hand, as you look at the big spender list some things might be apparent:
- Microsoft is #5, spending $9B and nearly 13% of revenue. Yet, for this money in 2012 the world received updates to their aging operating system and office automation software. Both of which failed to register favorable reviews by industry gurus, and are considered far from innovative. And Nokia, which is so floundering some consider it a likely bankruptcy candidate soon, is #7! Despite spending nearly $8B on R&D Nokia is now completely reliant on Microsoft if it is to even survive.
- Autos make up a big part of the group. Toyota, GM, Volkswagen, Honda and Daimler are all on the list, spending a whopping $36B. Yet, even though they give us improvements nobody considers them (especially GM) very innovative. That award would go to little Tesla Motors. Or maybe Tata Motors in India.
- Pharmaceuticals make up the dominant industry. Novartis, Roche, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca are all here – spending a cumulative $54B! Yet, they have all failed to give the world any incredible new drugs, all have profit struggles, and the industry is rife with discussions about weak product pipelines. The future of modern medicine increasingly is shifting to genetic solutions, biologics and more specific alternatives to the historical drug regimes from these aging pharma R&D programs.
Do you see the obvious pattern? Most big R&D spenders are not really seeking innovations. They are spending money on historical programs, following historical patterns and trying to defend and extend the historical business. In other words, they are spending vast sums attempting to sustain (or recapture) historical success. And, as the list shows, largely doing a pretty lousy job of it.
If you were given $10,000 to invest would you select these top 20 R&D spenders – or would you look for other, more innovative companies. From a profitability, rate of return and trend perspective, most of these companies look weak – or downright horrible.
Innovators don't focus on what they spend, but where they spend it.
The companies most known for innovation don't keep spending money year after year on their old business. Instead of digging deeper into what they already know, they invest laterally. They spend money putting the pieces together in new, unique ways. They try to find new solutions to old problems, using new – even fringe – technologies. They try to develop disruptive solutions that actually change the marketplace, rather than trying to make something that already exists better, faster or cheaper.
Lots of people like to think there is "scale" in research. Bigger is better. What's more important, for investors, is that there is "diminishing returns." The more you research an area the more you have to spend to find anything new. The costs keep escalating, as the gains shrink. After investing for a while, continuing to research an area is not a good investment (although it may be very intellectually interesting.)
Most of the companies on this list would be smarter to scrap their existing R&D programs, cut the budget in half (at least,) and then invest it somewhere very different. Instead of looking deeper, they need to look wider – broader. They need to investigate alternative solutions, rather than more of the same. They need to be putting more money on fringe opportunities, and a lot less into the core.
Until they do, few on this list are very good investment bets. You'll do better investing like, and in, the real innovators.
by Adam Hartung | Mar 25, 2011 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, Innovation, Leadership, Lock-in
It is unlikely anyone in business or government thinks productivity is a bad thing. Productive students get their homework done faster, and learn more in the available time. Productive musicians make more recordings, and tend to learn more over their careers. And productive companies produce more goods and services with less inputs – like labor – thus offering more to customers at lower cost while making more money for investors. At a national level, the more productive we are at everything from growing wheat to making cabinets to writing smartphone apps improves the quantity of goods available to our population – growing the gross domestic product (GDP.) Improving productivity is one of the most critical activities to creating and maintaining a healthy economy, improving incomes and generating wealth.
Then why is American policy so anti-productivity?
American manufacturers today are about the most productive in the world. In the Wall Street Journal's "The Truth About U.S. Manufacturing" we learn that American factory workers are producing triple the output of 1972. The use of ever more sophisticated equipment, often with digital controls, and a higher trained workforce has made it possible to make more and more stuff with less and less labor. While considerable manufacturing has gone offshore, it is not because our workers are competitively unproductive. To the contrary, productivity is amongst the highest in the world!
Unfortunately, most of America's business/economic policy at the government level has been trying to preserve jobs that are, well, not that productive. Take for example agriculture subsidies. They pay farmers to produce less and otherwise make less productive use of land, feedstocks, grains, etc. By giving farmers (most of which are now huge corporations, not the "family farm" circa 1970 and before) subsidies it actually lowers agricultural productivity.
Similarly, bank and auto bailouts (and all subsidies to any manufacturer) in effect lowers productivity. It gives money to a bank, which makes nothing. Or to an unproductive manufacturer to keep its plant operating when the value of the output is insufficient to cover costs. These spending programs serve only to defend and extend the least productive jobs in society – jobs that are economically unviable. By spending money in these areas the government attempts to preserve the old (companies such as GM and Chrysler) at the expense of productivity.
America can create highly productive jobs
"Amazon.com On Hiring Spree" is the Seattle Times headline. Amazon has revolutionized book retailing, publishing and is changing a number of other markets as well. The result is a far more productive workforce in these industries than previous competitors. Borders, to cite a recent example, could not be nearly as efficient selling or publishing books with its out of date model, so it recently followed 90% of other book sellers into bankruptcy. The more productive company, Amazon, is hiring people as fast as it can to grow its business. Its productivity allows Amazon to sell more and create jobs.
Had the government chosen to bail out Borders there would have been a public outcry. Why should we protect the jobs of those store shelf stockers? Likewise, as the number of printed books drops, replaced by digital books, should it be government policy to subsidize book (or magazine, or newspaper) publishers/printers? Whenever a business is no longer competitively productive – whether it be agricultural, manufacturing or anything else – bailouts serve only to keep the unproductive competitor alive. Which actually harms the more competitive company that subsequently must fight the subsidized competitor.
The right policy would be to subsidize Amazon. Amazon is growing. Theoretically, the more money Amazon has the faster it could grow and the more jobs it could create. But, of course, nobody feels good about subsidizing a growing, profitable concern. And Amazon isn't asking for subsidies, anyway.
Our public investments are shifting in the wrong direction.
The right public policy is to invest in creating new Amazons. New businesses that create products and services which are desirable to customers, productively using resources and creating jobs. By helping these new businesses get going the government spending creates new markets. Government money "primes the pump" for investors. Early stage funding allows the business to get started, create a product or service, generate initial revenues, demonstrate a P&L and entice others to invest. The payback to society is a growing enterprise that creates jobs, both of which creates future tax revenues which repay the early investment funding.
The current administration touts investing in the tools for creating growth. In early February the MercuryNews.com reported on a Presidential speech in Michigan, "Obama Promotes Plan for Near Universal High-Speed Wireless." But, like previous Presidential administrations, this is just a lot of talk. While Mr. Obama may think national wireless technology to promote economic growth is good, there is no money for it. In the same article it is noted that Michigan congressional representatives, who resoundingly backed putting billions into the auto bailouts, question the efficacy of investing in emerging infrastructure tools. Protecting the past, while questioning (or opposing) investments in the future.
Unfortunately, for the last 50 years American policy has been headed in the wrong direction! Innovation investment projects peaked around the Kennedy administration (early 1960s) with several American efforts to dominate new technologies through programs such as the famous "space race." Since then, less and less has gone into America's future, and more and more has been spent preserving the past – through entitlements, military spending and tax cuts which provide less and less incentive to invest in unproven projects.
Source: Silicon Alley Insider Chart of the Day from BusinessInsider.com
Since 1953 government "pump priming" by spending on R&D for innovations has declined by 50%!!! No longer is even 1% of Gross Domestic Product spent on R&D. Businesses, which require an immediate return on investment and are generally loath to spend money on things which are uncertain, have been left to fill the vacuum. As a result, total spending has been stagnant. Worse, most spending by business is on sustaining innovations – improvements which defend and extend an existing business – rather than on breakthroughs which create new markets, and a lot more jobs (for more on sustaining innovation investments by business read Clayton Christenson's books including "The Innovator's Dilemma.") Investment in innovation has been woefully underfunded, allowing America's economic leadership position to shrink.
America is driving innovation offshore
The Wall Street Journal has reported "More Companies Plan to Put R&D Offshore." When things are equal, business will invest where the costs are lowest. With little incentive to undertake innovation in America, increasingly U.S. companies are moving their R&D — along with manufacturing, customer service, telesales, etc. — to emerging markets. And their plans are to increase this movement offshore by 50-100% by 2015!
![[EMERGING]](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BK032A_EMERG_NS_20110221173344.jpg)
What will happen if innovation investments move from America into emerging markets? Will intellectual property remain an American advantage? Will new product development be done in America, or elsewhere? If the manufacturing is already in these markets, is it hard to predict that new products will increasingly be made offshore as well? Asked another way, if we outsource the innovation jobs – what jobs will America have left?
A dramatic change in American policy is needed
Last week America started bombing Libya. Part of protecting the national interest. But, this is not free – reportedly costing Americans $100M/day. Two weeks is $1.4B (probably a lot more, to be honest.). Let's not debate whether this is necessary, but rather recognize (as Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say on Saturday Night Live) "it's always something." There are programs, policies, military bases, agricultural lands, national parks and jobs to protect in every district of America – and its interests around the globe. And that's increasingly where America's money goes. Not into innovation.
So why are Americans surprised that job growth struggles? When the head of GE, a company that has moved manufacturing, information technology, engineering and R&D to offshore centers across the last decade, is made head of the U.S. jobs initiative is there much doubt? When the spending and incentives, as well as the selected leaders, have as their #1 interest preserving the past – largely in areas where American productivity lags – why would anyone expect new job creation?
America's protectionist mentality is causing its lead in innovation to slip away. The President, administration officials, Senators and Congresspeople needs to quit thinking that talking about innovation is going to make any difference in investments, or job creation. If America wants to remain globally economically vibrant it requires a change in investments – starting with more money for R&D via grants, subsidies and tax breaks.
If America wants jobs, and healthy economic growth, it needs innovation. Innovation that will create new, highly productive jobs And that requires investing in the future, rather than spending all the money protecting the past.
by Adam Hartung | Feb 15, 2010 | Books, eBooks, General, Innovation, Leadership, Web/Tech
Paralysis from analysis is all too common. Why? Because for the longest time people have assumed that it's possible to predict the future by studying history. And there has been ample belief that if you ask customers questions, they will give you the answers which will guide your future. Further, people want to believe that it was possible to find hidden meaning via discovering previously unseen correlations — even though almost all these sorts of low-score correlations turn out to be spurious, merely mathematical artifacts.
Readers of this blog know that when we investigated The Phoenix Principle we learned that traditional market research rarely improves understanding of customers or markets. And we learned that customers are incredibly unreliable at telling you what they really want, or what they are likely to do next.
Nate Bolt of market research firm Bolt Peters now confirms this. His recent column at Venturebeat.com "Stop Listening to Your Customers" is an indictment of traditional market research observed through his 9 years working with clients in the field.
- "A common assumption… is that listening to
potential customers is the best way to find out whether your product or
idea will succeed in the market. Honestly — don’t bother."
- "Opinions are often inconsistent with behaviors or other attitudes,
especially when discussing hypotheticals."
- "Remember 'Clippy" the little character that appeared in Microsoft Word years ago? That
little bastard arose, in part, from Microsoft asking users if they
wanted help working on their documents — everyone said, “Sure, sounds
great.” But once people started actually using it in the real world,
they hated it — it might be one of the most hated features in the
history of computing."
- "Never ask people what they think of your product or idea."
- "Test ideas early by watching behavior. It’s fine if you
don’t have a 100 percent functional interface — having eight people
interact with a prototype or even wireframes or design mockups can be
incredibly useful. Even recruiting strangers from the street to use your
prototype is better than nothing."
- "Use unorthodox methods. Companies like Apple and
37signals make a big deal about never conducting user research. They lie… Releasing products in generations, like Apple does, provides them with
mountains of reviews, task-specific complaints, crash reports, customer
support issues, and Genius Bar feedback"
Too much money is spent on research that can never, by it's design and method, tell the business what it needs to know. The only way to know how to compete is to get into the market. Quit trying to analyze – go do it! An ounce of "doing it" is worth a kilogram of research and analysis. Get out of the office, out of the conference room, and into the market. Set up a White Space team and make them responsible for launching, learning, reporting and figuring out what customers want that you can sell at a profit. That feedback is the research which is really worthwhile. It's faster, easier to get and more accurate than anything you'll get from a market study or focus group!
Nate Bolt's new book is "Remote Research." The link I found to the book was at RosenfeldMedia.com.
