George Heilmeier was one of America’s great engineers & a former director of DARPA. In 1992, he laid out his view on how to:
- Enable game-changing innovations
- Fix tech transfer
But 30 years later, our innovation process still fails us.
Why? And can Heilmeier’s framework help us fix it?
Why is it hard to translate research out of the lab?
According to Heilmeier (1992), a key reason we find it difficult to translate research out of the lab is because “Innovation is misunderstood among members of our technical community”.
In Heilmeier’s view, “Innovation is an idea or invention that becomes a business success.”
He gives the example of Liquid Crystal Displays (which he pioneered). They were invented in the 1960s. But they became an innovation in the 1970s, when they hit the market.
In his view, “Innovation, by definition, must include business success.” He thought the “business success” aspect was often lost.
Heilmeier’s solution: A “No Excuse” policy for tech transfer.
In 1992, when Heilmeier won a prestigious National Academy of Engineering Award, he published an opinion piece reflecting on innovation and invention.
In it, he argued for a “No Excuse” policy for tech transfer.
This policy would unite the invention and business parts of innovation.
It had 7 steps:
- Step 1: Formulate a “catechism” to decide what to work on. (I wrote about Heilmeier’s catechism here.)
- Step 2: Recognise productization as a necessary, crucial, activity. Allocate capital & personnel to productization early. Technology is not enough.
- Step 3: Identify receivers of the technology and ownership of the transfer early. Provide incentives on both sides.
- Step 4: Wherever possible, use common equipment in the development laboratory and in early manufacturing so that iteration and feedback is easy.
- Step 5: Begin the transfer process early immediately after demonstrating feasibility in the lab. Stay close to marketing.
- Step 6: Manufacturing must prove the methods developed in the laboratory before imitating efforts to improve them.
- Step 7: Keep the lab involved in the productization and manufacturing phases until the completion of product qualification and the achievement of cost and performance goals are achieved.
Summary: The key? Keep the lab close to the productization.
Crucially, he said: “Don’t think you can make it work by doing 4/7 or 5/7 steps. You must do all seven steps.”
He continued: “This is why failures in technology transfer occur. The road to failure is jammed with people who think they can get away with not doing the tough stuff”.
Where are we now?
Fast-forward to 2022. There’s been huge growth in funding for science startups:
- Deep tech
- Biotech
- Specific techs e.g. AI, quantum
There’s renewed focus on how to improve the commercialization of inventions.
However, rather than tech transfer being an integrated process, it is often talked about as a STAGE in the process.
It’s usually: Research –> [tech transfer] –> Commercialisation
This is lose-lose for everyone.
- Researchers (+ universities) lose out on the value they create.
- The commercializers + inventors lose out on the close connection that’s needed for continued iteration and improvement.
The current approach fails Heilmeier’s “No Excuse” Policy.
It also fails us as a society. Many promising developments in the lab never get developed to a proof of concept stage, let alone reach the market.
We need to rethink the fractured process so that more great inventions can be tested and explored.
It’s time to rethink what an integrated approach should look like for invention -> business success.
Here’s Heilmeier’s 1992 article: “Some reflections on innovation and invention
Recap:
- Heilmeier argued innovation = invention + business success
- He proposed a “No Excuse” policy for tech transfer
- Our current process still fails, 30 years later
- It also fails us as a society
- It’s time to rethink the process of invention -> business success