Tag: growth

Commercializing Ancillary Innovation

On January 23, 2020

“Technological Change Must precede economic growth. We are going about the process of Globalization as if economic growth can precede technological change – this is not sustainable” – D. Robles

The Ingenesist Project is deploying our blockchain based ancillary innovation solution to important projects and institutions in the US. By representing intangible assets as tangible, and using a novel tokenization strategy, ancillary innovation can be equitably deployed thereby restoring the balance between technological change and economic growth.

Commercializing Innovation

The successful commercialization techniques of novel ideas or research has evolved over the ages into an elaborate techno-legal-fiscal monstrosity of regulations and gatekeepers. It did not start this way and it may not need to continue this way.

All innovation stands on the shoulder of some prior innovation – e.g., the wheel, wedge, and lever are still ubiquitous in modern life. Innovation has always existed, but was greatly accelerated by the creation of the Scientific Method, considered as one of the most important advancements in human thinking. The Scientific Methods required inventors to determine causation and enforce the discipline of disproving the null hypothesis as a condition of validity.

The Patent system was created in the 1790 and is largely responsible for the industrial revolution by giving inventors a temporary monopoly so that they can develop their works. The cotton gin, the steam locomotive, Portland Cement, the electric generator and propeller were patented during these times. Eli Whitney, Faraday, Edison, The Wright Brothers, Henry Ford all benefited from the patent systems as did society as a whole.

As secondary inventions were built over primary inventions, the velocity of innovation increased dramatically. This cause a financial disconnect where the new inventions could not be funded directly from the revenue generated from prior inventions. Things became more complex in the age of computers and internet where all prior patents could be “re-invented” on a computer of over the Internet ushering an era of very rapid innovation across every industry.

Today, the velocity at which total innovation occurs vastly out-paces the velocity of the mainstream financial means for funding – as was the original intent of the Patent System. The result was an inversion whereas technological change once preceded economic growth providing a means to fund continued innovation. Now “economic growth (capitalization)” must precede technological change in order to fund innovation. This is an unnatural condition that gives rise to various debt related instruments and institutions such as “venture capital” who select winners and losers based on factors that may not be driven by the unity and advancement of society as intended by the patent system.

Most new ideas are abundant, unable to be restrained, dynamic and interdependent. Most ideas include elements of human nature or intangible value that simply cannot be expressed in the legal terms of a patents. There is now a very large gap between the patentable invention and the commercialized invention. Nearly all of the activity in this gap is innovative and intangible in nature, that is; commercializing a novel invention is likewise novel.

Ancillary Innovation:

Where Secondary Innovation is defined as a new or deliberate application or modification of an existing ideas, methods, or device. Ancillary Innovation refers to the provision of necessary support to the primary activities or operation of an organization, institution, industry, or system. Ironically, ancillary innovation may be the greatest untapped opportunity for primary innovation since the invention of the Patent system.

Commercializing Ancillary Innovation differs in many ways than primary or secondary innovation.

For example, even if a marketing study demonstrates that a primary innovation will fail in a certain demographic, the ancillary innovators were successful regardless of the impact on the primary invention. Killing a bad idea early is the hallmark of Capitalism. In fact, the value of the Ancillary innovation staff becomes increasingly honed with each experience being applied to the next market study until the support professional is regarded as having wisdom.

The nature of statistics is that an experimenter can observe a small sample of normally distributed events, and calculate the probability that the next observation will fall within a prescribed size, condition, performance, etc. Managers are generally characterized by their experience and thus their wisdom I being able to, say, assign the correct allocation of resources or priorities, etc.

Many accelerators, incubators, and venture capital firms serve in the capacity of ancillary innovation. They are run by people whose past experience is sufficiently (statistically) populated with failures and successes such that the probability of success in the ancillary innovation process is increased when given a new set of circumstances.

It is also worth mentioning that the value of the commercializing ancillary innovation far exceeds the value of the commercializing primary innovation, yet it is possibly the least understood. Furthermore, an enormous amount of innovation never reaches fruition for lack of ancillary innovation resources. It seems somewhat odd that so much technological innovation would be allocated to making a mundane passenger vehicle .5 seconds faster on its 0-60 time when the same technology could elevate entire communities from poverty. The difference is the prioritization of ancillary innovation.

Primary originators often receive a very small percentage for their contribution to the ancillary enterprise. The value of the commercializing ancillary innovation may be characterized by the quantity and quality of risk removed from commercialization; as compared to a risk-free hypothetical value of the primary investment alone.

Reasons why most startups fail.

The primary commercialization risks can be taken from a typical list of top reasons why startups fail. The following example is from a VC firm Quake Capital https://medium.com/swlh/the-top-10-reasons-startups-fail-ab3196d70568

Each of these failure modes exist due to an absence of ancillary innovation of some kind. Each requires a deep and highly specialized set of knowledge assets to mitigate. No single experience set can mitigate all of them, and most inventors are lacking most or all of the skills required to cover the ancillary innovation roles.

1. Lack of market need (42%): Metaphorically Is your product a vitamin or a Painkiller.

2. Lack of cash (29%): Many startups run into money problems /short runway.

3. Wrong team (23%): Having a cohesive group of highly motivated, persistent, and diversely skilled people is crucial for startup success

4. Too much competition (19%): A second-mover advantage allows new competitors to quickly capture market share that you helped validate.

5. Pricing issues (18%): Figuring out how to price the product.

6. Poor product (17%): founders sometimes release products that don’t fully appeal to customers.

7. Business model (17%): Lacking a monetization strategy. Failing to find ways to scale.

8. Ineffective marketing (14%): not understanding how to get one’s product into the hands of the target market.

9. Not customer-centric (14%): Many startups fail to obtain customer feedback and act on it.

10. Poor timing (13%): Airbnb’s success can be attributed to its impeccable timing, as it “came out right during the height of the recession when people really needed extra money.

Conclusion:

The ancillary innovation process satisfies the demand of the scientific method by forcing the inventor to understand causation and disprove the null hypothesis of failure. These ideals describe the role of the ancillary innovator.

The ability to assemble a specific combination of diverse knowledge assets deployed at the right time and the right place would not only mitigate risk, but if properly measured, would be able to quantify the value of risk mitigation in a tangible form that can be directly monetized.

It is essential that the time required to deploy ancillary innovation is vastly decreased from current methods, systems, and institutions. This is necessary in order to restore the natural and equitable intentions of the Patent system so that primary innovation can directly capitalize its own iterations.

The Ingenesist Project is deploying our Blockchain Based Ancillary Innovation solution to important projects and institutions in the US. By making intangible assets tangible, ancillary innovation can be readily monetized therefore restoring the sustainable balance between technological change and economic growth.

Growth Beats Austerity 100 to 1

By Admin

On May 15, 2012

In General Information

Bridge Over Troubled Water - by Cairn

Suppose a team of 10 engineers designs a bridge that spans a body of water connecting two small towns and cutting 1 hour off the alternate route for 14,000 people per day. Over the 75-year life of that bridge, those 10 engineers are responsible for 380 Million hours of increased productivity.

At 25 dollars per hour per person whose time is saved, 10 engineers create nearly 10 billion dollars of NEW VALUE. As such, only 100 engineers and a 10 bridges could create the same amount of New Value as Facebook is worth in an IPO.

Now compare the Old Value of the engineers.

Suppose that during the course of those same engineers’ careers, they could each borrow (capitalize) around 1 million dollars in personal debt for cars, homes, credit cards, and family education – debt that they would need in their lifetime.

By the miracles of the fractional reserve system, their 1 million dollars may be multiplied into 10 million dollars of new money available to the financial system for distribution. As such, those same 100 engineers would be worth approximately 1 billion dollars as economic beings in the Old Value economy.

100:1 Ratio

So in review, 100 engineers are worth 100 billion in New Value versus only 1 Billion dollars in Old Value. Of course, I purposely picked an example that would make the numbers come out all nice and orderly, but the most important point is that New Value leverages Old Value by several orders of magnitude.

Only two possible outcome of the global debt crisis.

1. The first is for all the countries of the world to get together and lop 3 zeros of the global accounts balance sheet and reboot. As such; 40 Trillion dollars becomes a quaint and manageable 40 Billion dollars. If it happens quickly, that’s called hyperinflation. If it happens slowly, that is called Austerity.

2. The second outcome is currently raging in Europe today with austerity protests toppling governments in France and Greece with the idea of growth vs. austerity. New candidates are promising to “grow” the economy out of its crisis. While this may be a bold and populist idea that is sure to spread, nobody knows exactly how it will be implemented without triggering number 1.

The New Value Movement:

By making so called “intangibles” tangible, vast amounts of New Value can be added to global accounts balances which could stave off wholesale collapse of the financial system. This will not be without hardship for some people; social priorities must drive Wall Street priorities, not the other way around.

We don’t have a financial crisis, we have a value crisis. One thing is emerging as a certainty, new value leverages old value by several orders of magnitude and The Value Game provides the capitalist model to access this astonishing wealth creation – in case anyone is wondering.

That Pesky Little Problem With Market Capitalism

By Admin

On December 11, 2008

In General Information

Technological change must always precede economic growth. We are going about the process of market capitalism as if economic growth can precede technological change. Somewhere along the line we have gotten the cart in front of the mule.

It seems that this situation can be fairly easily corrected – after all, it’s the same cart and the same mule. All we need to do is get the same driver to point the same carrot on the same stick in the opposite direction; and the system should turn itself around. Impossible we ask? Well, maybe not….yet.

The same species…

Economic growth and technological change are the same species; each is represented by human productivity. If I take a loan to buy a house, the debt is “counted” as economic growth backed by my future productivity. If I go to work and invent a method that provides a better way for people to accomplish something, that same productivity increases with my innovation. They should hedge each other much like insurance. The problem arises when we forget to count the mule.

If A = C and B = C, then A = B

If any two currencies are backed by the same standard, they should be readily convertible. If Euro’s and Dollars are both backed by Gold, they would be convertible between each other and the market can simply choose to trade one or the other. Arbitrage opportunities would keep the system balance.

This is the same case with debt and innovation; two currencies represented by the same standard, i.e., productivity.

What if a new currency was introduced and pegged to human productivity? That currency would also be proportional to the dollar. Arbitrage opportunities between debt and innovation currencies would seek a balance. The two scorecards would hedge each other as they should.

It is going to happen eventually, why wait?

While this may seem odd to talk about one State, two currencies, it is not so odd to talk about what happens if the dollar fails. People will start trading a different currency. The Plumber will trade ideas with the lawyer who will trade with the doctor, carpenter, teacher, grocer, laborer, etc. A computer enabled society will build a knowledge inventory of who knows what. Reputations will arise thus organizing knowledge in the form of a financial instrument. This social medium will be the tool that organizes trading schemes and establishing supply and demand. An Innovation Bank will keep track of who owes what to whom and distribute wealth in the form of tangential innovation. Venture “capital” will be the cheapest money in town – it’s like money in the bank for an innovation economy. This is in fact, the nature of society and largely the function it has served for thousands of years.

Little carrot on a big stick

The difference between now and any other time in history is that society is computer enabled. Human knowledge has been held hostage behind the construct of “intangible assets” on a corporate balance sheet for too long. There is a great deal of energy building up and it can now find a productive outlet through social media. The best government policy is to accommodate what people will do naturally. It would be extremely inexpensive to empower society to form an innovation economy to hedge market capitalism. People need a currency that is first and foremost natural for them to trade. Later, Wall Street can convert and gamble at their peril. But first, point the stick in a different direction and the system will correct itself.

[The Ingenesist Project (https://ingenesist.com) has specified three web application which if deployed to social media would allow social capital, creative capital, and intellectual capital to become tangible inside social networks.]

The Next Economic Paradigm