Manifesto Seminar - Joanna Chataway on Below the Radar Innovation


Published on

Joanna Chataway, Co-Director of the ESRC Innogen Research Centre, Development Policy and Practice, Open University gave a STEPS Manifesto project seminar entitled: ‘Below the Radar’: A user and market driven account of disruptive (and constructive) innovation for low income users.Find out more about Innovation, Sustainability, Development: A New Manifesto at

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Manifesto Seminar - Joanna Chataway on Below the Radar Innovation

    1. 1. Below the Radar Innovation Institute of Development Studies 5 March 2009
    2. 2. A word about authorship <ul><li>This presentation and the working paper upon which it is based is the outcome of discussion between: </li></ul><ul><li>Joanna Chataway, Norman Clark, Rebecca Hanlin, Dinar Kale, Raphie Kaplinsky, Lois Muraguri, Theo Papaiannou, Peter Robbins and Watu Wamae. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Increasing developing country share of global R&D <ul><li>Between 1970 and 2000, the proportion of global R&D in low income economies rose from 2% to more than 20%. </li></ul><ul><li>This rising commitment to R&D does not translate into the emergence of a family of innovations meeting the needs of low income consumers at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. </li></ul><ul><li>What is to be done? What are we to do? </li></ul>
    4. 4. Investment in science and technology is essential <ul><li>‘ Intensive’ growth is essential for economic development </li></ul><ul><li>Investment in science, technology and innovation is key to intensive growth </li></ul><ul><li>Question is what sort of investment is needed? </li></ul>
    5. 5. The Sussex Manifesto <ul><li>The Sussex manifesto reflected best practice thinking at the time but times have changed and we have changed the ways in which we think about the issues </li></ul><ul><li>From Fordism to interactive just-in-time producer and user led models and </li></ul><ul><li>From manifestos to ‘reflexive research based interventions ’….. </li></ul>
    6. 6. Why are changes important? <ul><li>Toyota distinguished between big changes (kaikaku) and small incremental changes (kaizen). R&D and S&T approach to technology development implicit in SM very much in the mould of kaikaku but Toyota finds that myriad small changes add up to rapid and significant changes. </li></ul><ul><li>Critical distinguishing features of kaizen: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incremental in nature </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User and consumer response is critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>And crucially for SM emanate from shop floor. </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Significance of changes cont <ul><li>Innovation in lean production systems is interdisciplinary and ‘in-parallel’ nature </li></ul><ul><li>Concurrent engineering requires different interaction across the value chain </li></ul><ul><li>AND no clear separation of innovation and production process driven by boundaries S&T and R&D content. S&T and R&D exists but is integrated to far greater extent . </li></ul>
    8. 8. Why is that last point so important to science, technology and development? <ul><li>Bell’s 2007 UNCTAD report and the importance of learning by doing. </li></ul><ul><li>Our work on International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) backs this up – ‘virtual company’ working in ‘public sector interest’ and an effective capacity builder. </li></ul><ul><li>Learning by doing and learning by listening is critical </li></ul>
    9. 9. From Mode 1 to Mode 2 <ul><li>Mode 2 thinking also begins to impact on innovation debate. </li></ul><ul><li>Links between science and innovation questioned in science policy interventions. </li></ul>
    10. 10. Nowotny et al <ul><li>… the old paradigm of scientific discovery (Mode 1) characterised by the hegemony of disciplinary science, with its strong sense of an internal hierarchy between the disciplines and driven by the autonomy of scientists and their host institutions, the universities, was being superseded – although not replaced – by a new paradigm (mode 2) which was socially distributed, application-oriented, transdisciplinary and subject to multiple accountabilities. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Mode 2 but not much in developing countries
    12. 12. Beyond Mode 2: New users and consumers. Disruptive and constructive innovation for the poor <ul><li>Below the Radar Innovation (BRI) builds on the idea of innovation systems and user led innovation. </li></ul><ul><li>Also based on idea that firms are path dependent, get locked into ‘architectures of innovation’. </li></ul><ul><li>Both an analytical and normative agenda </li></ul>
    13. 13. Below the Radar <ul><li>“ we use disruptive in the sense that it disrupts the trajectory and hierarchy of innovation players. This disruption may be technological in nature… but we don’t yet have any analysis of how very different markets can play a role in disrupting the participants in the innovation chain and the trajectory of innovation .” </li></ul>
    14. 14. Matrix 1: Tech and Market New Western medicines for poor consumers in developing countries – for example, vaccines for neglected diseases. Mix of ‘indigenous and traditional medicines and new consumers/users of those products The 90/10 issue – most R&D spend going to developing new drugs for a small minority of the world’s population. Includes trends toward pharmacogenomics, personalised medicine and new developments in synthetic biology, stem cells. N E W Generics for neglected diseases New distribution channels for old Western developed drugs and indigenous and traditional healthcare in developing countries Standard treatments for ‘rich’ consumers mainly in West. Heart Disease, Cancer are some of the major targets. T R A D I T I O N A L T E C H N O L O G Y NEW TRADITIONAL MARKETS
    15. 16. Matrix 2: market and hierarchy/industrial organisation Industrial organisation Traditional New ? ? ? ? New Traditional Markets
    16. 17. Below the Radar Questions and Tasks <ul><li>Better definition of what is ‘disrupted’? Markets, technology or hierarchy/industrial organisation? </li></ul><ul><li>Collect a portfolio of cross sectoral examples that help define disruptive innovation: technology, markets, institutional organisation/hierarchy </li></ul><ul><li>Refine the underlying hypothesis: the way MNCs are structured and organised </li></ul><ul><li>How does ‘disruptive’ become ‘constructive’ innovation? </li></ul>
    17. 18. What would a radically ‘disruptive’ and ‘constructive’ BRI innovation look like?