mtbreen

The Business of Science – An Oxymoron? The Attitude Hurdle Independent Research Institutions Must Clear to Survive

In Uncategorized on November 30, 2009 at 9:00 am

“Nothing shocks me, I am a scientist,” said Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, but even this rock solid support of the scientific mind would be undermined by the reality of the way many non-profit scientific research institutions operate in the real world.

Many of these research institutions rely heavily on funding through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other governmental organizations to survive.  And, survive they must, because their work significantly contributes to the welfare and quality of life for humanity as a whole.

Any first year business student will tell you without hesitation to rely on one client or a select few clients for the majority of your revenue is a risky business.  This dependence limits growth potential, and can actually put the life blood of an organization at risk should the relationship with this client(s) take a turn for the worse, or if competition increases.

Government grants are not the only source of revenue for these research institutions.  There is a huge pot of money available through contract and out-sourced project work from major pharmaceutical corporations and research contract organizations. These alternatives, however, are ignored by many non-profits.  For some reason, even in tough financial times, the idea of straying beyond pure science is shunned by many scientists.

While this is a simple business concept, reduced dependence on a single source of revenue, it is one that is often ignored by many research institutions.  The reason is the “B” word — Business.

Many scientists immerse themselves in “pure science” for the betterment of the world.  Participating in the dark side (the “for profit” business world) would, they believe, dilute the value of pure science and contaminate the pure scientific approach to problem solving, for the greater good, in favor of solutions for profits.

Hippocrates said, “There are in fact two things, science

and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.”  It seems that when it comes to the business side of keeping an independent research organization viable, many committed and well meaning scientists are embracing opinion.  Opinion that nurtures their idealized view of how the world should work and puts at risk the great scientific contributions that would be lost should the realities of business shut down an organization.

Clearly, these types of research institutions must change their thinking, in a world that is making it more difficult, through tightened budgets and dramatically increased competition, to sustain their revenue flow.

The reality of today’s marketplace demands a change in thinking about the business of science.  A difficult but achievable task is for non-profit research institutions to align themselves with the right partners; partners with experience to help engage the right for-profit companies and contract research organizations in order to diversify revenue.  Partners who know how to take the passion of an organization and frame it in a way that is relevant and meaningful to a business audience.  Non-profit research institutions who try to do this on their own, however, carry a high probability of failure because the skill set required to make this happen is not indigenous to the research organizations.

Non-profits must first focus on clearing the single greatest obstacle to ensuring their on-going viability — overcoming their intellectual aversion to the world of business.

Ivan Pavlov is credited with saying, “Perfect as the wing of a bird maybe, it will never enable the bird to fly if unsupported by the air. Facts are the air of science.  Without them a man of science can never rise.”

In today’s highly competitive environment of non-profit government financing, revenue diversification is the air that will support and lift non-profit research organizations, but only if they can accept the concept of the Business of Science.

Comment »

, , , , , , , ,

The Upside-Down Influence Model

In Uncategorized on May 30, 2009 at 9:00 am

Life use to be very simple.  Technology first appeared in the workplace.  We were gradually exposed to new ways of doing things, enabled by technology. We would discuss the new technology over dinner with the family or with friends on the golf course.  The exposure to new technology was slow, methodical and over time expectations were set that this type of technology would ultimately be available to ‘me’, at home.

In this environment, corporations could take their time in assessing the value of new technology.  They would observe other companies, in their market space and outside it.  When they felt there was value to be had with minimal risk the adoption of new technology would take a measurable step forward.  Movies and TV shows that used technology at part of their story line, be it serious or tongue in cheek, engaged the imagination of consumers.  The success of shows, “back in the day”, as my teenage son would say, like Mission Impossible, Get Smart, James Bond, 2001, clearly signaled the intrigue that technology held for consumers in their personal lives.

As technology began to leak into the consumers’ world, it was the early adopters that first became involved and gradually, over time, began to expand to the majority of the population.  Cases in point, the ATM machine, the personal computer, the cell phone.  Sure price played a significant role in the early stages of adoption but it was really a mind-set (early adopters) that initiated each product’s adoption cycle.

Well this model has been completely turned upside-down.  Today many socio-technological trends are starting on the consumer side and in relatively short periods of time are putting pressure on corporations to get their act in gear to meet the expectations of their current and new employees and by extension their customer franchises.

Just think of this scenario. A college senior who has become accustomed to totally controlling the flow of information, having ubiquitous and immediate contact with friends, enjoying simple search tools and taking for granted online collaboration with friends through social networks and online gaming has an ingrained expectation about the role of technology in his life.  The entire concept of infotainment scheduling (i.e. scheduled TV viewing) has given way to time shifting and personal infotainment management.  Additionally, he now has the ability to actually participate in and alter the outcome of content (casting votes for American Idol contestants).

He now enters the workforce and finds that when he gets to his job that he cannot do the things he has come to view as “expected”.  There is no simple, universal tool for collaboration, enterprise search is not an easy task, IT policy takes away some of his social networking tools (iPhone for example).  W’ssup with that?

Socio-technical expectations are now being set on the consumer side of a person’s life. This is beginning to have profound influence on how workers perform in the workplace.  It also has a significant impact on how consumers assess and engage all the brands that touch their lives. The aspirational day dreams that once were associated with the hope of technology coming to the consumer world have evolved into the nightmare of not be able to do things at work that are taken for granted at home.

What’s a company to do now?

Companies must begin to learn how this shift in the balance of expectation setting is actually working within their organization and they must also begin to map how this socio-technological expectation setting is influencing the purchase decision-making of their audiences.

Most companies are ill equipped to do this on their own.  Their approach to problem definition and solution is based on experience and momentum thinking™, which offers questionable value in a dynamically new context.  This calls to mind a quote from Albert Einstein, “You Can’t Solve A Problem With the Same Logic That Created It.”

Companies need to find a strategic guide who can help them navigate this new context and begin to evolve their team’s thinking in a world where the customer’s and employee’s life experiences are setting the bar for brand expectations.

Comment »

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ingenuity Trumps Innovation

In Uncategorized on April 30, 2009 at 6:00 am

The first casualty of a prolonged down economy is the willingness to take risk.  This condition manifests itself as caution.  At first glance, the cautious assessment of all decisions may seem prudent, but this tentative approach to seizing new opportunities quickly evolves to irrational risk-aversion, a major contributing factor to business stagnation and ultimate failures.

Irrational risk-aversion is a psychological virus that can wreak havoc on two levels:

  • At the business level it creates a bunker mentality

“I have to just hold my own for now”

  • On an individual level, the cognitive dissonance created by the intersection of the psychology of irrational risk-aversion and the reality of business opportunities creates fear and indecision

“I know there is an opportunity to leap ahead of competition, as they cut back on their marketing, but I can’t justify doing anything but trying to hold on and make my resources last as long as possible.”

Adding fuel to this fire of stagnation are all the business, marketing and guru articles that unabashedly claim that now is the time for innovation.  The newspapers, magazines and talking-heads on the business channels preach the religion of innovation.  The theme “Innovate or Die” is pervasive and expressed in many different ways.

There are research surveys that prove that companies who increase their marketing efforts in a down economy gain significant competitive advantage in the short- and long-term. There are case studies that show companies increased their business by being aggressive in reinventing their business model.

While the research and case studies may be true, the average business decision-maker listening to these isolated success stories is not bolstered with confidence, rather he / she suffers from significantly increased stress because it is impossible to rationalize embracing the common link in all of these case studies, that of Innovation.

Innovation has been described as a change in customs; something new, and contrary to established customs, manners, or rites.  What comes with Innovation is fear of the unknown, doubt of your ability to make the new thing work and a perception that the chances of failure increase exponentially.  While this is true for all companies, it is especially prevalent among small- to mid-size businesses.

So what’s the answer?

The answer is MacGyvernomics (MacGyver, the science teacher, mechanic, secret agent who carried a Swiss army knife, a pack of gum and a rubber band; figured out a way to solve his problems with what was immediately around him and what was in his pocket).  This is not about reinventing yourself or redefining who you are or what you do, which is the core essence of Innovation.  MacGyvernomics is all about working with what you have in ways you may not have thought about.  This is the essence of Ingenuity.
The British novelist, Arnold Bennett characterized Ingenuity in the following way:
“Much ingenuity with a little money is vastly more profitable… than much money without ingenuity.”

Ingenuity is the engine that small- to mid-size businesses must ride to a turnaround in these challenging economic times.  The challenge is to figure out how to get on the train.

Most small-and mid-size companies are ill-equipped to conduct an unbiased assessment of their core competencies and the opportunity gaps that exist in the current marketplace.  They need veterans of hard fought marketing battles to direct them through the process of assessment, discovery, planning and execution.  Albert Einstein said, “You can’t solve a problem with the same logic that created it”.  Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of your company through the Lens of Ingenuity, is the only way to seize opportunities that actually exists in today’s difficult economic environment.

Comment »