رمز موفقيت يك ايده چيست

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "رمز موفقيت يك ايده چيست"

Adela Reed
6 years ago
Views:

1 رمز موفقيت يك ايده چيست از نظر علمي ممكن است افرادي در زماني مشخص و در مكانهاي متفاوت داراي ايدههاي يكساني باشند. حال سوال اينجا است كه چرا و چگونه برخي از ايده ها مقبول جامعه مي افتد و رنگ تجاري به خود مي گيرد و برخي ديگر در همان حد ايده باقي مانده و فراموش مي شوند.بر اساس اين مقاله و تحقيق بسياري از فرصت ها اعم از فرصت هايي كه از سوي سرمايه گذار يا در رهگذر تكنولوژي به دست مي ا يد جدي گرفته نشده و از يادها مي روند حال اگر بخواهيم بررسي كنيم كه چگونه مي توان از فرصت ها استفاده كرد احتمالا به مشكل برمي خوريم چراكه موضوع هاي مورد مطالعه بيشتر حول موفقيت ها و پيروزي ها مي چرخد و مواردي كه به شكست منجر مي شود حذف مي شوند. با تجزيه و تحليل دلايل شكست تقريبا به چارچوب و مدلي مشخص مي رسيم. بسياري از افراد دليل شكست خود را اينگونه بيان كردند: از فرصت هاي خود استفاده نكرديم!براي درك بهتر مساله به اين مثال توجه كنيد: دو دانشمند به نام هاي «گراهام بل» و «اليساگري» همزمان روي پديده اي به نام تلفن كار مي كردند اما مردم فقط «گراهام بل» را و نه «اليسا گري» را به عنوان مخترع تلفن مي شناسند زيرا به رغم علاقه زياد گري به اين موضوع كار جدي در اين رابطه انجام نداد. شد! از اين دست مثال ها بسيار است افرادي كه به طور همزمان در حال مطالعه بر اكتشاف و اختراعات خود هستند ولي تنها معدودي از ا نها با موفقيت كار خود را به انجام مي رسانند. ممكن است در يك زمان مشخص فرصتي وجود داشته باشد اما فردي از ا ن استفاده مي كند و ديگري ا ن را جدي نمي گيرد. تحقيقات فراواني بر تجاري كردن دانش افراد بر اساس داده هاي علمي تمركز دارد. احتمالا اين سوال پيش مي ا يد كه چرا اكتشاف و اختراعي كه امروزه در ميان مردم امري است عادي قبلا وجود نداشته است ا يا پيشينيان فرصت ها را براي رسيدن به چنين كشفي مغتنم نشمردند يا دليل ا ن پايه علمي داشته و اصولا لزوم وجود چنين پديده اي احساس نمي شده است. به اين مثال توجه كنيد: اريتروپوي يتين هورموني است كه فعاليت هاي گلبول هاي قرمز را كنترل مي كند. امروزه اين هورمون در ا زمايشگاه ها توليد مي شود و يكي از مهم ترين داروها براي بيماران كم خون است. براي اولين بار در سال 1976 اين گلبول توسط دانشمندي به نام پروفسور گلدواسر تصفيه و بازسازي شد. وقتي اين دانشمند متوجه شد كه اين فرا يند از نظر پزشكي و اقتصادي تا چه حد ارزشمند است تصميم گرفت ا ن را تجاري كند اما در ا ن زمان هيچ دانشگاه و موسسه اي حاضر به همكاري نشد. ا يا به نظر شما مردم در ا ن زمان به اين پديده نياز نداشتند يا اينكه فرصت ناديده گرفته شد پنج سال بعد با پيگيري هاي به عمل ا مده يكي از بزرگ ترين داروها در تاريخ صنعت بيوتكنولوژي ساخته 1

2 مطالعه بر دوقلوها محققان براي درك بهتر ارتباط معنا دار بين ژن هاي رفتاري و عوامل محيطي تاثيرگذار بر رفتار روي دوقلوها مطالعاتي انجام دادند. در اين مقاله نيز از اين ايده استفاده شده است با اين مضمون كه: دليل ناكارا بودن يك كشف جديد ساختار ا ن است يا عوامل تاثيرگذار محيطي بارها ديده شده كه با وجود ساختار ثابت كشف و اختراعاتي كه در مناطق مختلف جغرافيايي به ثبت رسيده در منطقه اي تاثيرات اقتصادي داشته و در جاي ديگر ناديده گرفته شده است. در اين مقاله به تحليل علل اين پديده مي پردازيم هر چند كه بررسي تمامي عوامل محيطي دشوار به نظر مي رسد. بنابراين مساله فقط استفاده يا عدم استفاده از فرصت ها نيست بلكه انطباق يا عدم انطباق يك ايده و نظريه با محيط اطراف نيز مهم است. بديهي است كه همه ايده ها با شرايط محيطي سازگار نيستند. فرض كنيد مديري هستيد با ايده هاي خلاق. در برخي از شرايط ايده هاي شما بايد با دانشگاه سازگار باشد. گاهي ممكن است يك كسب و كار نوپا بتواند ابزاري مناسب براي عملي كردن ايده باشد و زماني ديگر يك كارخانه بزرگ ممكن است نقشي موثر براي گسترش ايده ايفا كند. همان طور كه گفته شد گاهي كارخانجات بزرگ براي گسترش و عملي كردن نظرات جديد بسيار كارا مد هستند به ويژه اگر كار اين كارخانجات مرتبط يا مشابه ايده باشد چون ساختار ظرفيت و منابعي متناسب با ايده دارد.حال فرض كنيد كه داراي ايده اي هستيد متفاوت تر از ا نچه در گذشته بوده و در نتيجه ابهامات بسياري نيز دربردارد. لزوما يك كارخانه خيلي بزرگ نمي تواند براي عملي كردن اين نوع از نظرات مناسب باشد. در كارخانه هاي خيلي بزرگ رويه هاي ثابتي وجود دارد كه به كارا يي سازمان كمك مي كند و اين رويه ها به همان نسبت در جذب ايده و نظرات جديد ك ند عمل مي كنند چراكه نظرات جديد ماهيتا ساختارشكن هستند و با رويه هاي ثابت منافات دارند بنابراين اگر به عنوان صاحب يك كارخانه بزرگ ايده اي داشته باشيد شايد بهتر باشد براي اجرايي كردن نظر خود سازمان و شركت ديگري را تاسيس كنيد. مهم تشخيص تمايز سازمان ها و انتخاب بهترين ا نها با توجه به شرايط مختلف براي اراي ه نظرات است. دانشگاه بنگاه هاي اقتصادي و كارخانه هاي بزرگ هر كدام محيط و شرايطي مختص به خود دارند و نمي توان گفت كدام يك ارجح است. هر يك از ا نان داراي مزايا و معايبي هستند و اين شما هستيد كه سازمان مناسب را انتخاب ميكنيد. نقش دانشگاه تحقيقات فراواني پيرامون نيروهاي انساني پرورش يافته در دانشگاهها و نقش ا نان در صنايع مختلف شده است همچنين اين تحقيقات به مشكلات همكاري اين نيروها و صنايع نيز پرداختهاند. برخي بر اين باورند كه استفاده از نظرات دانشگاهيان ا سان است زيرا ايدهها همگي مكتوب و به چاپ رسيدهاند اما برخي ديگر از صنعتگران تصور ميكنند كه ايدههاي دانشگاهي كاربردي نيست. اين در حالي است كه اين طرح (عملي كردن ايدههاي دانشگاهي) يكي از سياستهاي اصلي سياستمداران است. بر اساس شواهد موجود علوم توليد شده در دانشگاهها به توسعه تكنولوژي و فنا وري كمك نميكند و با مقايسهاي بين صنعت و دانشگاه به اين نتيجه خواهيم رسيد كه اختراعات و اكتشافات برا مده از دل صنعت كاربرديتر هستند. اغلب مطالعات دانشگاهي صرفا تحقيقات علمي هستند تا ايدهاي در جهت رشد فنا وري. بر همين اساس حتي اگر اين مطالعات جالب باشند براي صنعتگران متقاعدكننده نيست بنابراين نه تنها كارخانجات بلكه سرمايهگذاران نيز علاقه دارند بهروي اختراعات صنعتي سرمايهگذاري كنند. اما علت چيست چرا صنعتگران و سرمايهگذاران علاقهاي به يافتههاي دانشگاهي نشان نميدهند اولين دليلي كه به نظر ميا يد ا گاهي است. صاحبان سرمايه از اتفاقات علمي كه مرتبط با كار و كسب ا نان است ا گاهي نداشته و حتي الزامي هم نميبينند كه از ا ن ا گاهي يابند. همين امر سبب شكاف بين صنعت و علوم ا كادميك ميشود.دومين دليل اطمينان 2

3 است. بارها ديده شده كه كارخانهاي در مسير تجاري كردن يافتهاي علمي اقداماتي انجام داده كه نتايج مثبتي در بر نداشته و حاصل چيزي جز عدم اطمينان نبوده است.سومين دليل رويكرد و انگيزه فعاليت پژوهشگران دانشگاهي است. تمركز اين افراد متكي بر اصول تي وريك و نظري يافتهها و پيشبرد علوم است. روش تفكر ا نان چنين است و با همين روش مقالات علمي خود را مينويسند.اما در صنعت حتي اگر مقاله علمي هم به چاپ برسد تعهدي نسبت به نظريات و تي وريها وجود ندارد موضوع عملي بودن علم است. دغدغه صنعتگران توليد و پيشرفت تكنولوژي است. براي ا نان مهم نيست يك سامانه چگونه و چرا عمل ميكند فقط كارا يي لازم را داشته باشد. در مقابل دانشمندان ا كادميك هستند براي ا نان كاربردي بودن علوم اهميتي ندارد. با توجه به ا نچه گفته شد ميتوان سه عامل را در همكاري صاحبان سرمايه و علوم تاثيرگذار دانست: ا گاهي اعتماد رويكرد و انگيزه بنابراين در جهت رفع مشكلات بيان شده نياز به تغيير اساسي كاملا احساس ميشود. واضح است كه اعتماد طرفين (پژوهشگران دانشگاهي و صنعتگران) بر پايه پاسخ علم در تكنولوژي بسيار مهم است. شايد مساله اين باشد كه پيشرفتهاي علمي قبل از انتشار به قدري كه لازم است ا زمايش و بررسي نميشوند 3

4 What makes your ideas succeed 14 Oct 2014 Michael Bikard Michael Bikard has conducted the first twin studies of new knowledge, looking at how and why some ideas succeed and others fail. A common phenomenon in science is that people have the same idea at the same time in different places. Your research looks at how that happens and why one idea becomes accepted or commercialized and the other idea doesn t. Yes. One of the basic ideas that underlie this research is that a lot of opportunities, whether technological or entrepreneurial, are not observed if somebody doesn t take them, and so if you want to study, say, how opportunities get discovered, you have a problem because you observe only successes not failures. The idea of using simultaneous discoveries was really to try to do that systematically for the first time. What we know is that there are a lot of instances where people will say, well, I had the opportunity to do that but I didn t do it, so we know that failures in discovering opportunities are very common. To take an historical example, for instance, the original patent on the telephone from Alexander Bell was invented at the same time by Elisha Gray. Yet we don t really know Elisha Gray; we only remember Bell. Gray was on to something big and he didn t do anything with it. So I have collected a dataset of a lot of cases of people making the same discovery at the same time, and some of them are very successful with it and others aren t. So for the first time, I can actually see opportunities that people don t take. A lot of my research looks at how science gets commercialised and how people create or fail to create economic value based on scientific knowledge. Now, the big challenge in understanding that question is that when you see a scientific discovery is not being used, you never really know if it s because the person is missing an opportunity or whether it s just basic science and it is not useful to start with. For example, erythropoietin (EPO) is the hormone that regulates the production of red blood cells in humans. Its synthetic version is a very important drug for patients suffering from anemia. 4

5 EPO was first purified in 1976 by a professor at the University of Chicago called Eugene Goldwasser. He wanted it to be commercialized as he saw that it could help millions of people and also had a lot of economic value. He even told the university to apply for a patent for it, but they didn t follow up. No one followed up. Goldwasser went to different companies, including Abbott, and they didn t want to hear from him. And so one of the big questions, in instances like that is, is it because it s really basic that people don t want it, or is it that they re just not seeing the huge opportunity that Goldwasser saw? Five years later, a start-up called Applied Molecular Genetics (now Amgen) took on the project and produced one of the most successful drugs in the history of the biotechnology industry. So why do twin studies? In behavioural genetics, researchers have used human twins for decades to better understand the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors on people. So with my twin studies of new knowledge it is essentially the same idea: when a discovery is being made and not being used, we don t know whether it is because of its fundamental nature or because of the environment. By looking at the same discovery in different places, I know that they have the same fundamental potential, and so I can see how one environment will create a lot of economic value and the other will not, and try to understand why that is. How did you get into this research area in the first place? What was the first impetus? It s a combination of things. Being at MIT, I was talking with a lot of scientists. Also, I m French, and I always wonder if the same discovery s being made in Boston and Paris, or in Boston and London, whether it is going to create the same amount of economic value? And there is no way to know because when we see the success of Boston with biotechnology, we don t know if it s because Boston scientists make discoveries that have more potential for commercialisation or if it s because the environment in Boston is better. When I first came into the PhD programme at MIT, I told my supervisors I wanted to compare different environments. They told me I was crazy, because everything changes across environments; you can t compare them because you never know where the variance comes from. At MIT I looked at simultaneous discoveries, talked to scientists and then it just occurred to me that that s an opportunity for researchers, to keep the opportunity constant, and to observe what type of environment allows the creation of economic value, based on that opportunity. 5

6 What can executives take away from this research? The underlying message of my dissertation and my research, in general, is about saying that the environment really does matter. It s not only about the opportunity. There are a lot of opportunities out there that people don t take, and the environment makes a huge difference. There is an art and with luck there will be soon a science of discovering entrepreneurial opportunities, and that will depend on your prior experience and social network. So, basically, it s not only about seeing an opportunity or not seeing it; it s about a match between an idea and an environment? Not all ideas are adapted to all environments. So if you re a manager and have an idea for a new product then, in some circumstances, you may want to think about working with somebody in a university to develop it. And in other cases, a start-up would be the best kind of vehicle to develop the opportunity. And in yet other cases, it would be a large firm. You need to think of organisations as vehicles, or some kind of organism that can grow different types of ideas. Large firms will be a lot better at growing ideas that are more similar to what they already do, so they already have the right capabilities, the right structure, the resources. Now, suppose that a specific idea is very different from what came before and therefore involves a lot of uncertainty, then you get into a world where large companies are just not great. Large firms have routines and that allows them to be very efficient, but that s also their weakness, because routines are usually adapted to specific business models, and usually when you have ideas involving a lot of unknowns, you need to figure out new routines. It is very, very unusual that the old routines work. And so if you re a large firm and you come up with an idea that is not very well adapted to your own kind of capabilities, then you may want to think of licensing it to a start-up, or maybe spinning of a company. It s important to be smart about understanding what kind of organisation is better at developing different things. Universities, start-ups or large firms are very different environments. It s not that one is better than the other. Each of them has their own trade-offs and that makes them more adapted to grow specific ideas better than others. Your research also looks at the role of universities. Can you explain more? The most mature project I am working on is about understanding the role of universities in the division of innovative labour, and mostly trying to understand some of the problems associated with using research and ideas coming out of universities. There s an assumption that it s very 6

7 easy to use stuff coming out from universities because everything gets published. But, on the other hand, a lot of practitioners complain that a great deal produced by universities doesn t get used, and that s definitely very high on the agenda of policymakers, especially in the US. I find evidence that scientific knowledge produced in universities is not being used as much as it potentially could be to produce new technologies. And the way I know that is that I can compare discoveries made in universities with the same discoveries made in industry, and my results indicate that the ones made in industry are used more. The most obvious explanation is that university scientists are not all interested in technology development. They focus on scientific research. So even if there is something interesting, they re not going to pursue it because they don t have the incentive to do so, and because that s not their job. It s clear that when a firm makes a discovery, then the firm seems to be a lot more likely to use that discovery to produce technologies. But then, perhaps more surprisingly, it seems even thirdparty inventors use more discoveries produced by firms than produced by universities. Why do people use more discoveries that come from firms? Aren t universities all about access to knowledge? The results are more suggestive than conclusive, but I think they open an interesting avenue for future research. One is an issue of awareness. A lot of inventors seem to not necessarily be aware of relevant stuff coming out of universities, so that could be part of the gap between industry and academia. The second thing that I find evidence for is an issue of trust. I look at life science, and apparently a lot of firms have tried to commercialise stuff coming out of published academic sciences that ended up being not reproducible. This has created a lack of trust. The third element is about the way academics approach discoveries. They tend to focus on the fundamental contribution to theory, that s how science progresses, and so that s what is in the minds of academics doing science, and that s how they write their papers. For firms, on the other hand, even when they write scientific papers, what s on their mind is not the contribution to science, but whether it works. They want to produce a technology. So the scientists in academia don t necessarily pay as much attention to whether it works or not whereas the people in firms just care about that. They don t really care about what the mechanism is and why it works; they just want it to work. In summary, three elements might make it difficult for inventors to use knowledge produced by academics: awareness, trust and approach to discovery. So things need to fundamentally change. In life sciences, it s clear that the issue of trust is gaining a lot of publicity. Considering the 7

8 importance of replication in science, this is definitely a good thing. The basic problem is that there is so much pressure on scientists to publish that they might not take the time to conduct as many robustness tests as they maybe should You also do research on collaboration and creativity. One of the main reasons why I started being interested in this topic is that the scientific literature on collaboration has been very positive. A lot of papers have been written that celebrate collaboration as something almost magical, that allows people to become more creative. But when I was talking to scientists, they were not always that happy with collaboration. There seemed to be a lot more problems in reality than in the literature, and so that s how I started getting interested in it. The first insight came when I was talking to a friend who is a biologist, and he was telling me collaboration was inefficient and he was losing so much time in meetings. Then it occurred to me that one of the reasons why people were so optimistic about collaboration was that people have been comparing outputs. So if you compare the average output of a person working alone and the average output of people working together then you will always find that the more people, the better the output. It seemed to me there was a problem in our approach. By comparing outputs, we don t measure the input that goes into that output, and it s possible that there is a lot more pain, effort and time that goes into, say, a three authored paper than a solo authored paper. In other words, our approach has blinded us from measuring and understanding major costs associated with collaboration. As a result, we might be too optimistic about it. The risk is that we might ask people to work together while they would actually have better results working separately. Another important cost that people have not been thinking about is the issue of allocation of credit. The question of the allocation of credit is a new frontier in the research on collaboration. I don t think that we know a lot about it, so that s something new I m exploring with my coauthors Fiona Murray from MIT and Joshua Gans from University of Toronto. The main argument of our paper is to say, yes, it s true, collaboration is associated with higher quality work on average, but it has a strong cost in terms of productivity. Besides, collaboration creates a lot of issues concerning credit allocation. We looked at how credit gets allocated in science. We found evidence, and again, it s not conclusive, that people are over-rewarded for collaborative work. It s not clear whether it s a good or bad thing for society, but it seems that for scientists, it makes more sense to write two co-authored papers than one paper each, alone. For managers, it is important to keep these trade-offs in mind. If you want to use collaboration to foster the creativity of your employees, you need to know that collaboration also has important costs in terms of efficiency and credit allocation. 8

ICD-O 3 rd Edition. National Cancer Registry workshop International Agency for Research on Cancer Deputy of Research (Iran Ministry of Health)

ICD-O 3 rd Edition. National Cancer Registry workshop International Agency for Research on Cancer Deputy of Research (Iran Ministry of Health) ICD-O 3 rd Edition National Cancer Registry workshop International Agency for Research on Cancer Deputy of Research (Iran Ministry of Health) TEHRAN, I.R. IRAN, 29-30 APRIL, 2015 Abbas Sheikhtaheri PhD,