Reversed innovation process

The Reversed Innovation Process, in short RIP, is an approach to innovation reversed with respect to the usual approach of technicians and scientists.
It is quite common that in many companies and in many universities innovation means starting from a certain previous technology or product and improving it at the light of its drawbacks or limitations. This approach is very limiting especially for a university as the innovation process tends to remain within the boundaries of the previous technology.
In order to have good chances of transferring quickly and easily a technology to industry, i.e. arriving at economical exploitation, it is necessary that a technology may be used for satisfying a people’s need; in other words, starting from a need and finding a solution.
Additionally, when starting from a need there are better chances of developing a new technology and not simply the improvement of an old technology especially if the team working on its solution is interdisciplinary.
Finally, by starting from a need, it is likely that the initial development may be carried out without very expensive laboratories and very long research activities especially if the team working on its solution is not only interdisciplinary but also made of bright technicians and/or scientists properly guided. It must be remembered that many valuable inventions were simply made on paper initially.
The Reversed Innovation Process is not to be confused with the so-called Reverse innovation i.e. “an innovation seen first in the developing world before spreading to the industrialized world”. In fact, while the reversed innovation process may be used for reversing innovation, reverse innovation may derive from a traditional approach to innovation.
There is no direct relation between the Reversed Innovation Process and the so-called Open innovation, i.e. “a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology”, even if the aim of a reversed innovation process is typically open to transfer the developed (and patented) technology.
Although the idea of starting from a need might recall the so-called “problem invention” theory postulated by the European Patent Office (see http://www.epo.org), the first one is a practical approach for generating innovation and the second one is a theoretical approach for evaluating innovation in view of its patenting. According to the “problem invention” theory (see EPO Case Law and ), in certain cases, the identification of a technical problem may imply an inventive activity while its solution might be straight forward; in these cases, a patent should be granted even if the solution is not inventive per se.
From the practical point of view, an appropriate formulation of the technical problem is often key for finding a good solution and sometimes even for finding the solution; the activity of formulating the problem is called by some authors “inventing the problem” (read Robert Root-Bernstein “Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Science”, Harvard University Press, 1989) or “problem finding” (see also in Italian scoperta del problema). According to the Reversed Innovation Process, this activity of “problem finding” is carried out for moving from the practical need to the technical problem and for decomposing the technical problems into a number of technical sub-problems.
Therefore, RIP (see figure) is essentially made of two steps:
*STEP 1: IDENTIFY a NEED that is REAL
*STEP 2: CONCEIVE a SOLUTION that is WORKING and INVENTIVE
Anyway, due to the economical character of the Reversed Innovation Process, two further steps are provided in RIP (see figure):
*STEP 3: FILE a PATENT that is VALID
*STEP 4: GET a RETURN that is ECONOMIC
Although the Reversed Innovation Process may be used in any environment, it turns to be particularly effective when used by a small working Group being interdisciplinary, made up of people with very high technical and scientific background and, for example, based in a university. The members of the Group work together during periodic meetings (e.g. one day per month) and alone between these meetings (e.g. some days per month); there are a “coordinator” and a “social guide”, both members of the Group but without technical or scientific background.
STEP 1
Each of the members of the Group identifies real needs (even small and simple), i.e. needs whose satisfaction would have a great impact on the practical life of many people, and corresponding technical problems; the Group selects and faces some of the identified needs/problems based mainly on the real usefulness of their solutions.
Depending on the hosting environment (industry, university, …) and the composition (more or less interdisciplinary) of the Group, the range of needs considered by the Group may vary a lot.
If the Group is located in a developing country, the Group should take into account the practical impact of the solution not only in the “third world”, but also in the “first world”; in this way, “reverse innovation” may be achieved. Additionally, preference should be given to those technical problems whose technical solutions are likely to be produced/realized, at least in part, locally; in this way, local development may be achieved.
STEP 2
Each of the members of the Group contributes to solve the selected technical problems through his own specific technical and scientific competence; innovation facilitation techniques (for example TRIZ, brainstorming and lateral thinking are used; there are a first stage of general conception and a second stage of detailed development; there is no engineering stage of the solution, but the detailed development will reasonably assure that the solution can be realized and used in practice as well as be properly working.
Each of the members of the Group contributes to identify known solutions (already industrialized and/or patented) to the selected technical problems and to technical sub-problems encountered during development; in this way, it is much more likely that the developed solutions will be inventive.
STEP 3
The first conceived and then developed, solution is patented initially at local level and subsequently at international level (but typically without initiating the expensive final “national phases”) so that it becomes the subject of an exclusive right that may be transferred e.g. to industry.
Careful patent searches are carried out not only in view of subsequently patenting the solution, but also as support to conceiving and developing it.
STEP 4
Finally, technology transfer generates an economic return that is immediate and monetary.
If the Group is located in a university of a developing country, preference should be given to local companies and to local initiatives of foreign companies; a (small) “marketing” team may be used for fostering technology transfer.
There may be also economic returns that are less immediate and monetary (development of local economy, development of local university, …).
Thanks to patenting, the Group can control the economic exploitation of the solutions according to social and ethical objectives.
Bibliography
*Altshuller G., Creativity as an Exact Science, Gordon & Breach, 1984.
*Altshuller G., And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared, Technical Innovation Center, 1994.
*Altshuller G., 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation, Technical Innovation Center, 1998.
*Altshuller G., The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical creativity, Technical Innovation Center, 1999.
*Anthony S., The Little Black Book of Innovation: How It Works, How to Do It, Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.
*Carayannis E. et al., Innovation Systems in Small Catching-up Economies, Springer-Verlag, 2011.
*Dunn P., Appropriate Technology: Technology With a Human Face, Schocken Books, 1979.
*Govindarajan V. et al., The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge, Harvard Business Review Press, 2010.
*Govindarajan V. et al., Reverse Innovation: Create Far From Home, Win Everywhere, Harvard Business Review Press, 2012.
*Hazeltine B. et al., Field Guide to Appropriate Technology, Academic Press, 2003.
*Polak P., The Death of Appropriate Technology I : if You Can not Sell it do not Do it, Out of Poverty (http://blog.paulpolak.com/?p=376), 2011
*Radjou N. et al., Jugaad Innovation: Think Frugal, Be Flexible, Generate Breakthrough Growth, Jossey-Bass, 2012.
*Root-Bernstein R., Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of Science, Harvard University Press, 1989.
*Schumacher E. F., Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, Harper Perennial, 1989.
*Schumacher, E. F., Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered : 25 Years Later, Hartley & Marks Publishers, 1999.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu