Find information on common issues.
Ask questions and find answers from other users.
Suggest a new site feature or improvement.
Check on status of your tickets.
By Eugene A. Fitzgerald
Materials Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
View Presentation (SWF)
Additional materials available (4)
Write a review
07 Dec 2018
4.0 out of 5 stars
I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation, as it provided an important view on some key aspects of innovation that are commonly neglected and the process of bringing one’s ideas to the market. Prof. Fitzgerald shared some valuable insights on innovation, including the fallacies with the traditional linear model of innovation as well as bringing to light the real iterative innovation process. He also provided well-rounded, logical examples of this process using his own experience with strained silicon. It was interesting to hear his story on the innovation of strained silicon, from his early influences at Cornell University to his work with Bell Labs and MIT, and ultimately to Intel licensing AmberWave Strained Silicon. I also found it rather helpful that he discussed the history, traditional viewpoint, and progress of the innovation model and how American innovation is at risk due to a misallocation of resources. He ties this in with the various aspects of society, including university education and research, public research, and corporations, by explaining how the problem has been influenced by each sector and also proposing how they can be changed to revive American innovation. Lastly, I think the quotes that Prof. Fitzgerald included in his presentation were relevant and helped to transition between ideas, and I especially like the last quote about the definition of an engineer. Overall, this was a very informative presentation and it helped explain the definition of true innovation, which I also had an incorrect understanding of.
Please login to vote.
06 Dec 2018
The ideas the lecture talked about are really interesting. When talking about innovations, one usually focuses on the novelty of the idea. But Pro. Eugene A. Fitzgerald also highlighted that a good innovation must also be profitable and marketable. His point of view is actually very logical. It takes more than novelty for an idea to be good it also needs utility.
He also talked about his experience with strained silicon. I think this was the most useful part of the presentation. The details of his experience with real innovation provide useful insight into the process. He then talked about the history of innovations in the US, and how it changes over time. This part provided an overview of innovations and how they interact with the change of the society.
Overall, the lecture is very informative, and discussed his unique point of view about innovation.
Lakshmi Anirudh Ghantasala
05 Dec 2018
3.0 out of 5 stars
Real innovation has been scarcer than many may be led to believe. The speaker begins with the idea that we are at a crossroads of technical achievement where we should carefully consider how and where we put our resources. This decision making comes down to the difference between innovation and invention; invention is easy to fund, whereas innovation is more involved. Not all inventions are useful, while innovation tends to change the way we live in some fundamental way. Supporting that change requires not only coming up with some technology but implementing it in some useful way and bringing it to market, a process in which most companies tend to fail.
The ideas that the speaker brings up are interesting; they make you consider whether the work you are doing really matters, or if you are stuck in the technology node in his triangle chart, without a chance of your work reaching the market place. I appreciate the birds-eye ideas that this talk presents about how we as a nation should move forward, but I think the presentation itself was extremely dry. Much of the first 15 minutes were very difficult to understand; I don’t see how innovation connects with people not getting their 401ks (I’m sure there is a legitimate connection, I just can’t follow the speech). The anecdotes about bell labs and strained silicon discovery were useful to stress the Technology -> Implementation -> Marketplace idea, but once again they were very, very dryly presented. It would have been very helpful if the core idea of each anecdote was summed up with a single, exciting punchline, instead of spread out over a 10 minute story.
Namrata Vivek Raghavan
29 Nov 2018
5.0 out of 5 stars
I found this seminar very helpful. Firstly, as a graduate student I always found it very hard to differentiate between innovation and invention. I often though of innovation in the same sense as that of inventions where you discover something new. For this reason I found it very useful when the speaker explained that innovation instead was the combination of three process, technology, implementation and market place.
Secondly after my graduate studies I was hoping to work in the industry where I can work on innovative projects and come up with realistic, practical and useful solutions. Hence I really found his explanation of the iterative innovation process very helpful. In specific I really appreciated his emphasis on choosing the right research problem. Often as a research students, we push towards making new discoveries without thinking about its practical usage and its value in the market place. This results in a large number of patents that are more often than not never actually used for a practical application. In addition the speaker mentioned that which choosing a research problem, due to the fast changing nature of today's world we need to ensure that the research problem that we use has applications in different market places. This will thus ensure that solutions that we come up with can help further innovations in other fields and hence will remain relevant for a longer amount of time. In addition to this another useful point put forward by the professor was how important he believes it is for present graduate students to be aware of technologies that exist within the market place as these may be very useful resources in their own research projects. I believe that the points put forward by the speaker gave me a better idea of how to approach the research and implementation process. This talk helped me better understand how to better aware of the products with high demand in the market place and to work on research projects with high relevance within the market place.
Jacob A Covey
21 Nov 2018
I enjoyed the topic of the seminar a lot. I think that this line of thought is generally not taught in engineering and missed as a whole. In my experience with research a major driving factor is how many publications a topic can produce and practical applicability falls on the back burner. His assessment of of real innovation as something that needs applicability and markets is an incredibly valuable engineering insight that is frequently missed.
The section of the video chronicling his experience with strained silicon is a very good practical insight into the process. The later section about the historical effects on innovation and the current state are also very good. But I did not love the video prior to the strained silicon section. The information was useful but is was a very drawn out way to explain something that the later sections did much better and could have been reduce from 20 introductory minutes to 5.
But overall the talk was entertaining and very useful.
01 Nov 2018
This lecture discusses about the process of Innovation. The presenter makes good use of his personal experiences to illustrate this process. He starts off with the linear model of innovation and then moves on to explain the iterative process of Innovation.
He takes the audience through his own journey with the Strained Sillicon Technology, the ups and downs that he went through with it which is a very good example to go with the process that he was explaining. He also presented the three pillars of innovation- the technology, the market and the implementation. The synergy between the three pillars is highly needed to work upon any idea and make it an innovation. He also talks about the problems associated with it like Competition, Intellectual Property Preservation and Financial Funding.
The presenter also talks about the innovation pipeline and encourages increased academic and industry collaboration to fuel the pipeline. Overall, it was an informative lecture which discussed about invention and innovation.
Aaron M Barnes
04 Oct 2018
Professor Fitzgerald made some interesting points about innovation within the contexts of startups and small businesses. I was shocked at the proportion of newly formed small businesses in the United States (11-13%). He also made a distinction between "innovation" and science / invention. He defines innovation based on the usefulness of the idea within the marketplace. Then he discusses how the traditional linear model of innovation, novel technologies lead to commercialization which can finally be brought to market, is not accurate. He makes a good point about how it is difficult to identify innovative technologies which will be useful / needed in the marketplace. Fitzgerald suggest that the innovation process is iterative; the market forces, technology development, and implementation processes are all interconnected.
Fitzgerald then comments on the current state of American innovation. He makes the claim that US innovation has reached a point where global competition has led to a period of stagnation. He talks about the value of University-based research decreasing as corporations shift to the right in the innovation pipeline and the number of research papers increases.
27 Apr 2018
The presentation was very informative, dispelling several myths regarding innovation, and the nature of innovation performed at different kinds of organizations. He also provided insights into the various factors one must consider before committing to a a particular kind of organization, which I personally felt to be crucial to someone like me, who is still confused about academia vs industrial research.
That innovation is an iterative process struck a chord with me as well - this is something I have been facing with my own research, and it was reassuring to know that it is actually a universal experience.
I particularly liked the information provided with respect to start-ups. In my head, I always thought start-ups were more committed to "disruption/innovation" etc, but I do understand now that it may not always be the case.
As a general comment, I feel the visuals could have been made more concise and appealing.
26 Apr 2018
This lecture focuses on the word innovation which Gene explained is a big part of factor in the academia - cooperation continuum. Unlike the word invention, innovation do not require much new information, but focus on the implementation of knowledges from the academia(e.g Universities). Gene further explained that the traditional linear model of innovation is just the process of technology to the implementation and finally to the market. However, nowadays, it is a iterative process of interaction between target, implementation and market, and the innovation is the result of the iterations. And this model reflects mainly on the start-up companies.
Before the lecture, I really do not have a general idea of what I can do with all the knowledge I learned from universities except just work for the big corporations. But if I need to start a project by myself, I need the idea from this lecture, that the iterative process of those three factors and create an innovation. This lecture is highly informative and useful. I do enjoyed a lot.
26 Apr 2018
Overall, I feel that this was a very good seminar. As a graduate student, research is something that I've had some experience in. However, one thing I hadn't really considered before was how that research can eventually turn into actual usable and marketable products. As Gene mentioned, it is easy to believe that it is a simple as finding a good idea, coming up with a way to implement it, and then putting it on the market. Instead, he emphasizes that actual innovation is based on a great number of interdependent factors. Not only does the technology have to work, implementation has to actually be feasible, and the technology itself has to be economically viable. Getting all the pieces to align is a gradual process that takes many years. Rather than everything happening at once, innovation is an incremental process. There really isn't a single point at which everything just suddenly clicks. Gene then goes on to use his own experiences in the semiconductor industry as an example of how innovation really works in the real world.
While I feel that Gene had a great deal to offer, one area I feel that the seminar could have been improved is how the material was organized. As it is, it feels like two distinct seminars that were given back to back. The first part was a discussion on how innovation worked, whereas the second half was a case study on Gene's own experiences. I feel that the presentation would have been strengthened had the two parts been put together, i.e. using the discussion of Gene's own experiences as the primary topic while taking time to discuss the process of innovation at key points in the story.
26 Apr 2018
This was a very interesting lecture about the meaning of innovation. The speaker was clear and confident in his delivery, and the slides were helpful and complementary to the speech. I particularly enjoyed the description of the written history of innovations and why this leads to the misconception that innovation follows a linear process. It was also very interesting to hear about the presenter's personal experiences and his own company's innovations.
However, apart from the presenter's experiences, the presentation mostly focused on vague, abstract concepts of innovation and hypothetical examples of how researchers, businesses, and investors operate. It would be very interesting to hear the presenters take on some historical examples of innovation such as the founding of companies like Apple, Google, etc. The presenter could use these examples to illustrate the abstract ideas he presented and demonstrate the mentality of the people involved so that we as engineers can better connect the ideas to our own work.
25 Apr 2018
This seminar focuses on the process of innovation. The speaker dispels several misconceptions of innovation and gave his definition of innovation. Then he went on and talked about the innovation model. Instead of a linear model, he proved a iterative model of innovation. As an example he talked about his personal experience in the innovation of strained silicon. In the end, he showed how innovation evolved through time in US.
The talk gave me a new perspective on innovation process which I have not given much thought about before. One small thing the presentation is lacking of is a good structure. An overview of the flow of the presentation in the beginning will help viewers to have a better grasp of the idea. Besides that, the speaker delivered a good presentation. Particularly I agree that linear model of innovation might be appropriate decades ago, but as economy evolves to its current status I believe the iterative model gives a better picture of how industry and academia interact.
23 Apr 2018
This is a overall very good lecture for graduate students. What is innovation? We hear about it all the time but I personally didn't really spend time to think about it. The speaker showed me that what I thought about innovation was not quite correct. The real innovation is a iterative process which needs us to put market, technology and implementation all together and learn from every part of them, rather than just focus on one part at a time. I think this idea is very inspiring to me because as a student, I usually only focus on 'technology' and ignore the other things. I also like he used his own experience about Strained Silicon and it really helped me to understand his points better.
However, the video quality is incredibly poor that I can't even see the letters...I had to download the slides and watch both of them together, this could be very inconvenient and frustrating. I hope someone can fix this problem.
22 Apr 2018
The speaker of this talk does an excellent job of exploring a topic that not many people understand, that being the idea of the innovation pipe line. As many of us are academics who exist as a stage in this pipe line, seeing how our ideas are transported and shaped into products is very intriguing. The speaker maintains this interesting by having strong graphics and a good flow with the presentation. He also uses facts that target many of our preconceived notions, in this case regarding the average startup, to keep the audience involved and engaged.
What I personally enjoyed the most was the speaker ended strong with a call to action. Having laid out his arguments and information, he completed his talk by encouraging the audience to get involved and inspiring the listeners to lead this innovation, that now was the perfect time to get involved.
My only criticism has nothing to do with the speaker, but more with the introduction. At some point enough is enough, and while reading off all of the speakers credentials is certainly impressive, it can reach of a point of excess that detracts from the presentation. Personally, I would have cut the credentials shorter, and given the speaker more time to talk since I certainly enjoyed what he had to say.
Mustafa Fayez Ahmed Ali
13 Apr 2018
This seminar is a very informative source about innovation. Prof. Gene talks about what is meant by real innovation. He mentioned that financial bubble made 30% increase of employing MIT graduates, and that we should focus on Innovation and no symptoms. Startups are good innovation mechanisms, 11-13% of employment in US is in newly formed small companies. However, most of them are in lower-tech businesses that have high competition, this makes most startups are not that innovative. Also, some statistics about US startups are:
So, what is innovation? It's not useless inventions, or science. It demonstrates focus on recent times, and embodiments of useful ideas in the marketplace. Innovation model starts with technology, then startup formation to commercialize it, then the big companies put it markets, some of these startups by then becomes big companies. The real innovation process iterates between market, technology, and implementation of these ideas/tech; from technology to implementation, we use business models, supply chain, manufacturing, from Implementation to market, we study market needs and applications, from market to technology we investigate transactional experiences. the size of this circle will be smaller for and closer with newer ideas and innovations. He then mentioned his experiences in Strained Si Tech, this technology is inside microprocessors since 2004, extends Moore's law continuity, delivered billions of dollars in value to the marketplace. In MIT 94-98, they made fundamental advances in lattice-mismatch engineering regarding dislocations, surfaces, and process integration of new materials in silicon processing. Thus, Practical embodiments now must leave university. He explained why american innovation is at risk, I think there’s strong evidence that information technology has been utterly transforming and will continue to transform, moving into industries such as health care and education. But my worry is that the rise of IT was the fruit of many years of investment. We are eating seed corn but not laying the groundwork for the next great technological revolutions. I liked the comparison between the previous innovation pipeline, and the current innovation pipeline. Also, universities missions are clear for education and research. Corporations also have done a big role in innovation, from 1990 to now, operational corporation model is working. from now on, the innovation corporation model should be adopted, this can be done by changing talents of EOs, and to be a partner in largest experiments in innovation. I loved the quote from Vannevar Bush, 1942 that gave the perfect definition of an engineer. I gave this seminar very good (4/5), it's very informative and organized.
11 Apr 2018
This is a good talk about Inside Real Innovation. This lecture is useful for PhD students. For people without much research experience, this lecture provides clues about what actually makes innovation happen. For example, the talk is divided into defining the innovation pipeline and a description of the speaker's personal experience.
Not so good part: Slides could be improved by make in the slides more readable. The speaking pace is sometimes a little fast to follow.
Overall, this talk is very well structured and useful. For people doing research, I would recommend this lecture.
05 Apr 2018
Name: Zijian Zhu
The speaker introduces several concepts of innovation in this lecture. And it successfully corrects me some misunderstanding of innovation. First, the speaker tells us that "start-ups" companys are not equal to innovation. It is because most of them are low-tech business model. They are different from huge companys such as Google and Facebook, even though they have been exist for several years.
The speaker then talks about the linear model which are technology,implementation and then market. Gene Fitzgerald claims that this linear model is wrong, the correct modes should be iterative model. People should learn from market, improve their technology and then implement iteratively.
This lecture is very good. Gene Fitzgerald uses his strong experience with simple statistic chart or graph to illustrate idea. And he successfully corrects me several misunderstanding of innovation.
30 Mar 2018
In this lecture, Gene talked about what is real innovation and how real innovations are made. He draw years of personal experience to justify his argument, which makes his points strong.
He first argued that innovations are not about organizations. Based on statistics, although 11-13% of total employment is by newly formed companies, these startups are often time low-tech business and are not about innovations. So different from the popular view of looking over companies like Facebook or Google for innovations, we should instead focus on innovation itself.
He then talked about the traditional linear model of innovation that often starts with a technology, then an implementation and finally a product in the market. This is a universally accepted model but universally false. He argued that this linear model of innovation is a result of our tendency to record historical evens in a linear process. He also pointed out that if this model is indeed true, then we wouldn't be able to finance all technologies at the same time efficiently. As a result, there must be more to innovation than a simple linear model.
He then draw his personal experience to show that the innovation process is complicated, iterative where technology, implementation and market forms a dynamic relationship and changes constantly throughout the course of the innovation. He also mentioned that for reearchers the most important part of this innovation process is choosing the right problem to work on.
Gene talked about the changes in the innovation pipeline in the US. In the past both universities and corporations joined their efforts on applied research and seeks funding together from the public. But now corporations turned away from applied research and only focuses on development, which probably benefits them the most financially in the short term. What ended up happening is that only the universities are working on applied research and get funding from the public on their own. This then leads to the production of a big pile of 'purple dots' that could be academically interesting but not useful in the practice, which explains the gap we have nowadays between research and the market.
In conclusion, Gene thinks the universities/researchers should think more about the market, while the big companies should focus more on innovations compared to focusing only on operational efforts.
I think this lecture is well organized and makes strong points using statistics and real experiences.
30 Mar 2018
I like the speaker and I liked the quotes especially the last one "Chaos = Opportunity!".
The speaker based his conclusions on strong statistical basis for example his statistics about start-ups that usually managed by a man below 40 and usually unemployed/law income person and usually contains no innovation.
The speaker differentiated between the linear and iterative innovation process. Also he identified the role of the universities and industry in the innovation pipeline in the past and currently.
29 Mar 2018
While start-ups can lead to innovation, the speaker says that the focus should be on the process, not the organizations or business model. Essentially a start-up business model is not necessarily innovative. His facts and statistics about start-ups were very interesting and contradict what most people think of for start-ups. I appreciate his use of survivorship bias/availability heuristic, the most successful start-ups that survive are represented more in media, and come to mind easier. Aside from his start-up facts, I know in the past few years there have been an increase in start-up ‘incubators’, and I would like to hear about how much of an affect these types of locations can have on start-ups and their innovation, if incubators increase innovation and success.
His ‘iterative innovation process’ reminds me of the design process that we learn in engineering. His iterative process is a loop between technology, the market, and implementation. The design process we learn is a circular process too, and it might take many iterations to create your product. If you simply make one loop of the design process (or innovation process) then you may have a basic product that meets the bare minimum requirements, but it will not be an innovative, complete product. I see that these processes are linked and depend on each other. I appreciated his examples of how he used this process in industry, at Bell Laboratories, and the challenges he saw, such as competition with Intel, and sometimes having to ‘backtrack’ along the iterative process.
He ended with a strong message on how to ease the innovation process, which I will keep in mind as I search for a full-time career, do the companies I look at have an environment/ecosystem that encourages innovation in the long run.
19 Feb 2018
Gene Fitzgerald, in this lecture, mainly focused on introduce the concept of innovation and give us a chance to have a glance of what the real innovation looks like. He asked us to focus on innovation, not start-ups. "Start-ups" is not equal to "innovation". Most start-ups are not innovative, though they are the newborn company for the market. This correct my wrong opinion. I always thought that start-ups play an important role in the innovation of the world. Now it seems that I was wrong. When I remember the companies like Google and Facebook, I realize that even though these huge company existing for many years, they are still active, innovative and full of youth.
Why we should focus on innovation? The reason is in the following news. When the whole financial world encountered a crisis, there were still 30% MIT students hired by financial companies. This is quite shocking. In this way, innovation speaks for itself.
When modeling the process of innovation in the real world, people usually uses a linear mode, technology to implementation then to market. Even though this is widely accepted, Gene Fitzgerald claims that this is actually wrong. The model of innovation process should be iterative not linear. We cannot first choose from infinite technology method, and then choose from infinite ways of implementation and finally produce a new product fro the market. So the linear model is not possible.
This lecture is pretty good. Gene Fitzgerald has a good knowledge of how to use simple but proper figures, charts and tables to explain his ideas. The news and his true experience he referred in the lecture are all persuasive and strictly relevant to his opinion. The only thing that I am not satisfied is, he uses the quotation, "useful embodiments of ideas in the marketplace", to explain what is innovation. This is too abstract for me to understand. I know it is not science and it is not invention, so it is what? This makes me really confused. I expect he can use some easy words for the explanation.
08 Feb 2018
Sad to hear about Dr. Bagwell passing away! It's was pretty funny how Dr. Lundstrom introduced another Professor Dr. Jerry Woodall, who then finally introduced Professor Dr. Gene Fitzgerald for this lecture.
After this lecture, I will probably read Dr. Fitzgerald's book on Inside Real Innovation. Glad to hear that most of the investor banker because of their blunders. It is also interesting that 30% of MIT graduates in 2007 were in the financial sector. It is very interesting to hear that new engineers will have to focus on innovation because investors are weary about spending their assets on mechanisms.
I really like his idea of focusing on the innovation and not the start-ups. Another good book to read will be the illusions of entrepreneurship. It is very interesting that most people start a business due to the following four factors: Unemployment, working part-time, while changing jobs, and when they are making less money. I wonder if further your education would be a good addition to the list.
I particularly enjoyed his remarks about what is innovation, and how he relates it to "useful embodiments of ideas in the marketplace." His slide on slide on Linear Innovation Fallacy is interesting where he talks about how effects of historical recording, and how the philosopher Koon related this principle to oxygen. I agree with his statement that innovation now a days is linear and that's how humans think.
I like his time illustration about how it takes about 10 to 15 year from fundamental innovation to be a first dollar earnings. However, fundamental innovation is what changes history is very powerful, and it is the key as per his talk. Focusing on choosing the right problem is so correct about the work, but I wish he would have given some more concrete examples for this.
I really liked his honesty about that he did his PhD because of the corporate influence. Gives a good guide for us to relate our work with Corporate America. Very realistic presentation!
I love how they, Amberwave, were able to get Intel in a patent litigation. His conclusion about how to focus on your passion was very powerful, and how he equates chaos to opportunity.
Sabarish Vettakkorumakankav Sridhar
07 Feb 2018
In this presentation, Gene Fitzgerald talks about innovation and what it means to be an innovator. He starts of with the linear model of innovation and provides some explanation as to why he thinks it is something which he doesnt think is right. Instead he says that innovation is an iterative model and he provides an example by talking about his own startup and his personal experience.
He brings out that the transactional experience is really important and is what makes a difference. He then explains the differences in the previous innovation model and why the innovation model is going to change very soon. In the beginning there was a close relation between the industry needs and the universities. However , in the new model he shows that universities are not as close to the market because they dont interact as closely with industries as they originally used to.
In this model, we need to determine what kind of research is needed by the market. This means that whenever there is chaos there is an opportunity. He also talks about why he feels that the fundamental long term innovation is needed. The incremental innovation phase needs a long term innovation(which takes about 10-15 years ), and this is something which happens in the background. This is why often we use old and new technology combine to create innovation.
The talk was very informative and interesting. It was a new approach to the entire process of innovation and helped me realize how closely the market and technology interact to drive research.
10 Dec 2017
The speaker talks about what innovation really means and what constitutes the process. I think anyone who is into research should watch this lecture as innovation might not always mean what one thinks it is. The point about how start-ups aren't the only ones involved in innovation and how big corporations actively participate in innovation is something we need to take into account when trying to find a job. Most times people think that no meaningful innovation is done in the industry and this misconception is being clarified in this lecture.
The speaker also talks about the process involved in innovation and how even a small change in one of the following three would count towards innovation: marketplace, implementation and technology. He also talks about how the co-ops between industries and Universities should increase. This is a good point and I think in the past seven years, this point has become even more evident and a more common practice.
Overall, the lecture what a very informative one which helped me realize that no matter where I end up, I can still stay true to innovation and make a change.
08 Dec 2017
The main idea in this presentation is the innovation. Three elements that are relative to innovation are marketplace, technology, and implementation. Eugene detailly explained these relationships and inspired us to apply actions during our graduate school.
This talk is very helpful for us when we are doing the research. Because creativity is a quality that we should have to do research. As he mentioned, “useful embodiments of ideas in the marketplace”, it is also relative to us when we finally will connect our knowledge with society.
For the slide, the background color could be changed into white or black. I believe purple is a little bit attractive so that audience will not focus on the material on the slides. Also, there are some slides contains too much text information (Last three slides). Nevertheless, the diagrams, pipeline demo, and visual information used in the slides are fantastic. Especially the pipelines, they are easy to understand and helpful.
Overall it has a 4/5 score.
Roland N Green
05 Dec 2017
Gene Fitzgerald's presentation on "Inside Real Innovation" provided real insight on how I should be approaching my research. He brings up the point of a focus on innovation instead of start-ups, as innovation does not necessarily come from these companies, and can also come from corporations. He speaks to the point that start-ups are genrally low-tech, which goes against what I had in my mind when thinking of silicon valley-type start-ups.
Innovation not being invention or science was another thought that Gene brings up in his presentation that I had not considered. He defines it more as "useful embodiments of ideas in the marketplace," which led me to redefine what perception was on companies and the prodcuts that they introduce to the public.
I particularly enjoyed Gene's thoughts on the "Iterative Innovation Process" where he describes how intertwined technologies are, and how they are mixed to create new products. How this relates to the needs and wants of the market was also something that I had thought about, but not in the context that these markets have certain uncertanties that effect both technology and implementation from the beginning of the process.
Overall, I feel that the presentation gave me a unique look into the "Endless Frontier" of innovation. I feel that the presentation could have been improved by including more examples of how this non-linear innovation process works, and how it is employed by companies today.
04 Dec 2017
Title of the talk is Inside Real Innovation. He starts by introducing some concepts about innovation, the way that it is today, then shows the progress of it through the years and use it to reflect about where we are today. As students it is important for us, specially in a time with drastic changes, to be involved in innovation and being a part of the challenges.
I like how he draws examples from past to discuss how capital was trying to find a place to invest in but couldn’t. Then focusses on why couldn’t the innovation pipeline couldn’t provide a path for investments.
He discusses the differences between innovation and start ups and the need to focus on innovations in the market place. He talks about the perception of entrepreneurship – the statistics/demographics.
Innovation isn’t invention or science. He defines it as “Useful embodiment of ideas in the marketplace”, and models it linearly and as an iterative process. I understand how modelling makes it easier for us to understand problems. However, in this scenario, it would have also been nice to know how these models were used to tighten the gap between capital and innovation.
Overall it was a good lecture. It was also nice to hear about his time as a graduate student, and how he uses that as an example to model the innovation process. This gives a perspective on how individuals can contribute to something larger and gives a perspective on how real innovation works.
Vichitha Kekanaje Chinmaya
23 Nov 2017
The session helped me understand that innovation is the “Useful embodiments of ideas in the market place”. The innovation process is an iterative procedure involving going back and forth between the different aspects of market, between old and new technological ideas, and the efficient implementation methods. The going back and forth between the 3 aspects (technological aspect marked with purple bubbles, market aspects marked with red bubbles and implementation aspects marked with green bubbles) is called a transactional experience. The gap or the distance between the 3 aspects is supposed to minimize over time and finally overlap with each other to call the process a successful innovation. Gene Fitzgerald also gives states several insightful aspects and terms that are related to innovation and research. His own experience of innovating the “Strained Silicon Technology” which went through several rigorous rounds of development between the academia, big semiconductor corporations and startups is inspiring. He then talks about the old and new innovation pipeline models and speaks about the disparity between the two. The new innovation model has lead to a lot of unrelated research piling on with less sense of direction or purpose compared to the previous innovation model.
The overall session gave me a very practical insight into what goes into innovation. However, the quality of visuals could have been made better with more legible slides.
Daniel Mas Montserrat
28 Apr 2017
This is a good lecture where it presents some ideas about innovation and its relationship with the industry. The talk starts by presenting the steps of innovation and it introduces some useful experiences. The speaker presents the three main pillars of innovation: the technology, the implementation and the market place. It explains the relationship between the pillars and how they evolve form a big idea to a narrow market. This process can take between 10 to 15 years. The lecturer introduces the relationship between industry and academia when it comes to innovation and it tackles aspects like competition, intellectual property or looking for funding.
This lecture is interesting and dynamic. It is easy to understand and it could be teacher to non engineers. Maybe the use of visuals could be improved by make in the slides more readable.
08 Apr 2017
This is an interesting seminar. The speaker introduced the concept of innovation and the truth behind scene. An innovation idea has three aspects, which are technology, implementation and marketplace. Sometimes the innovation process takes years from forming the idea to really making profit in marketplace. The three aspects are not independent, they are interactive with each other. The speaker also gives examples about the innovation pipeline. Now the cooperation between industry and academic institution becomes more important in producing the real innovation. There are also problems in the process of innovation, such as lack of funding, competition and intellectual property preservation. The lack of insight into future is also the restrict for innovation. From this lecture, I better understand the process of innovation. After connected my own experience when I worked for a startup company, I found the speaker really lead me to a deeper understanding how a innovative company should work like.In all, I like this lecture.
09 Dec 2016
In the whole series, I found this seminar most interesting. Most of the time students get confused between innovation and invention. The presenter explained both invention and innovation processes and what goes on behind the scene. The innovation idea can be formed using three different aspects, technology, implementation and marketplace. The timeline for the innovation process is interesting and it can takes years to even form a basic idea and it’s an iterative process which can take longer to actually realize. The presenter gives realistic scenario about the innovation pipeline where most of the research is done by big corporations but now, industry academic co-operative work should be emphasized more for producing real innovation. The presenter also talks about problems faced in the process of innovation such as lack of funding, competition and intellectual property preservation. Overall, it’s a really engaging seminar.
Sarvesh Vijay Pradhan
26 Mar 2016
Overall a good seminar focused on what goes into the 'innovation' pipeline and some thoughts on why innovation is suffering today. The talk is divided into defining the innovation pipeline and a description of the experiences of the Speaker along that pipeline. I found the talk difficult to follow until the example was explained and is largely the reason I give this three stars. The spoken experiences give meaning to the pipeline and remove ambiguity in the contribution of each stage. I would urge viewers to stay with the talk until the example is detailed.
The Speaker defines 'innovation' as research that is translated into a product to be consumed by the market place. Only when the product is tangible, consumed and purchased by the marketplace is the innovation considered 'real'. To this end the Speaker defines a synergy between three pillars, the technology, the implementation and the marketplace. The implementation is the physical realization of the product while takes into account the limitations of manufacturing process or supply chain etc. All three pillars narrow as the time spent on the innovation increases; from a big idea to a narrow market to a specific manufacturing technique. The time to a real innovation is put at 10-15 years.
The model of innovation described helped define a thought framework of how to approach innovation as an individual. It also defines the need for partners who understand the pillars and are willing to speak across pillars. Further the Speaker talks about the lack of capital reaching real innovation. He blames this largely on incorrect metrics used to measure innovation, number of startups, intellectual property and the lack of insight to spend 10-15 years supporting the innovation pipeline. The speaker encourages more industry academic co-operation to root researchers in solving problems that are tangible in today's markets thereby producing real innovation.
06 Dec 2015
An overall very good seminar about innovation.
One thing I really like about this lecture is how deep it explains what actually makes innovation happen. I recall that in my semester (Fall 2015) taking this course other seminar also talked about innovation, although it was not the main part. It also explained why innovation is not invention, and shows the pieces (market, implementation and technology) but didn't clearly showed how they interact. It showed innovation process as more or less linear (or maybe just me not understanding that seminar well enough). On the other hand this lecture takes a step further and clearly explains why innovation process is iterative with 3 pieces interacting with each other. People watching this would have very clear understanding about innovation.
Another aspect I found interesting is since this lecture was in 2010 and US was still recovering from the Great Recession, the speaker started the lecture with the question why capital can't converge in right place where innovation is happening. While I don't believe the cause is investors had little understanding of innovation process (the root cause is probably greed), I think this lecture could also be shown to business people besides engineers. The information about how innovation happens, what is the current state of innovation and how we can solve the problems is helpful to both groups making decisions.