Is innovation nature or nurture?
As Microsoft give the BBC a tour around their Future Home, CNet’s Rupert Goodwins asks how such research contributes to Microsoft’s bottom line. He says this kind of fundamental future research is intended primarily as a status symbol. Patronage of exciting, well-funded work and strong cross-over with academia functions more as a branding exercise than productive and bottom-line changing research.
He has some strange examples to back up his argument. He cites some traditional technical R&D from Intel as an example of research that makes a difference. He also cites Apple’s shutting down of Apple Research Labs in 1997 as evidence that corporations don’t need fundamental research. These examples ignore non-technical research by Intel and the undoubted relocation of research activity by Apple.
He does raise an interesting point about the social life of research and the “personality” of research in different organisations. How important is the model of innovation adopted by an organisation in influencing the impact of research on the organisation? Is innovation in organisations nature or nurture?
Comments (322)