Innovation for President
Just the other day I stumbled upon John Kao’s blog, on c|net, which strongly suggests why all presidential candidates should be focusing on INNOVATION in the U.S..
“Different countries have different models, ranging from heavy government direction like Finland, to the U.S. style “let ‘er rip” system that relies on bottoms-up innovation. For the U.S. to better compete, Kao said, it needs a strategy that makes innovation more of a priority. ”
I have to agree with John that our country needs a higher priority for innovation, although I don’t believe sole responsibility lies with our government. Government can incent but cannot fix innovation gaps.
John also stated “I want the government to oversee the best platform possible, like the national highway system, but I want total freedom for entrepreneurs,”
Quick question for John… Are you kidding? Okay no that’s not the question… What makes anyone think government has any idea what a real innovation platform would look like let alone how to manage it? Maybe government could provide incentives for innovative programs that produce a competitive advantage for our nation, but build and manage innovation? No likely John, not likely.
Here’s a quick example… The United States Government didn’t ask Ben Rich and Lockheed Martin to create stealth technology. Lockheed’s Skunk Works created the revolutionary technology as a way to outwit Russia’s dominant missile technology. Lockheed and the Skunk Works were provided an enormous government contract only after demonstrating their problem solving innovation. Lockheed’s Skunk Works is heralded as an innovative force in their industry even forcing Boeing to create the Phantom Works. Competition breeds innovation…
End result, government should not provide a structure for innovation, although may provide creative incentives pushing more companies to create their very own progressive R&D programs, like the Skunk Works, focused on answering economic, workforce, and educational threats through innovation.
In closing from John, “Prioritizing innovation for societal goals now is more like preventive medicine.“
Well said! Many companies would do well to approach their recruiting practices, corporate policies, and culture building efforts with the same mindset. Many tech companies already do, but the principles hold in every industry, just as they do for every nation.
You have to respect Kao’s fervent bent on helping U.S. leaders move from just getting the importance of innovation to getting innovation done. Because when you deal with populations instead of employees and governments instead of competitors, something as simple as a ‘common agenda’ is difficult to achieve. We need leaders who can galvanize and incentivize smart people to tackle some of our big time problems.
Although I hear what you’re saying about our government’s current inability to deliver a real innovation platform - at the same time, if we don’t start addressing the systemic nature of our problems on a national level, our future will continue to be a bit fuzzy. I want more out of our government than just a few incentive programs!
I respect Kao’s position and ideas immenesly, although differ on opinion regarding the practical execution of possible innovation platforms.
I believe every company, big & small, is responsible for innovation because it drives their profits, competition, and the economy. I would expect my government to help lead by supplementing and supporting the company innovation initiatve.
Everyone wants more, although not everyone is willing to work for it themselves. The innovation and hard work starts when the handouts stop…