How then can we orient ourselves to successfully innovate when the timeline for demonstrating results does not match the timeline of the innovators they are trying to support?
"You."
Sylvia and fellow students at HESN TechCon
This post contributed by Sylvia Sable, Master of Science in Global Health Candidate, Duke Global Health Institute
I have had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Alex Dehgan, science and technology advisory to the administrator of USAID, head of the Office of Science and Technology and Duke alum, speak on several occasions. The most recent time was at the 2013 Higher Education Solutions Network (HESN) TechCon. HESN brings together universities conducting groundbreaking research on development issues in an effort to better inform USAID initiatives and base action on evidence. Dehgan’s unique background (a Ph.D. and M.Sc. from The University of Chicago’s Committee on Evolutionary Biology, a J.D. from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and B.S. in Zoology and Political Science from Duke University) always leads to an interesting conversation about population growth, conservation and the role of aid in national and global security. This talk I found particularly interesting, but not for the reasons I usually do. I had recently learned more about the topic of ‘disruptive innovation,’ a concept coined by Clay Christensen in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, which became a key component of Dehgan’s talk. In brief, disruptive innovation refers to an innovation that creates a new market and value network which eventually displaces an earlier technology by disrupting an existing market and value network. New products or services usually target a different set of consumers in a new market and later lower prices in an existing market. What this means is, instead of innovating to create a new ultrasound machine model that can do 70 things instead of 60 things, a disruptive innovation would create a new ultrasound machine that can do 3 things, serve 70% of the population and be affordable in a market that previously did not have any ultrasound machines – and, eventually, brings down prices of ultrasound machines in the original market. Successful examples of disruptive innovations, like micro-loan programs and community colleges, are increasingly inspiring development professionals, and for good reason. However, there are real barriers to bringing disruptive innovations to scale, particularly in government development agencies that have an increasing responsibility to report back about the effectiveness of their aid programs to their constituents.
During a career panel with distinguished speakers, including former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, it became evident that the timeline USAID has to demonstrate impact is getting shorter and shorter; as Alex Deghan put it himself “the absence of acceptable failure can kill innovation”. Further compounding the barriers to bringing disruptive innovations to scale is the iterative process through which innovation takes place. The development of a truly disruptive innovation takes time, something that has been in short supply at USAID. How then can we orient ourselves to successfully innovate when the timeline for demonstrating results does not match the timeline of the innovators they are trying to support? The answer that resonated with me- “you”- was posed by Sheila Desai, Deputy Director for the Office of Food Security within the USAID/India Mission, as she spoke to a group of undergraduate and graduate level students interested in pursuing careers in development. She stressed that if the way things are being done will not work, we are the ones who need to push for change in the future.
While I believe it is of utmost importance to innovate and develop solutions to some of the biggest problems on our planet, if we do not think about this in the larger context of aid delivery and the challenges this brings, then we are not doing our innovations justice. Many believe that we have all the technological innovations we need in order to end poverty, hunger and the majority of issues in developing countries, and that the problem is not too little innovation but a lack of collaboration in a way that allows these innovations to be successful outside of the lab or a business plan. To make matters even more complicated, aid is increasingly becoming only one way of sharing innovations across the globe. Foreign direct investment is on the rise in developing countries and private industries are beginning to realize the long-term value of bringing solutions to these emerging markets. My time within HESN has challenged me to think outside of the box for solutions, consider all stakeholders and what each has to bring to the table and most importantly, consider context, including domestic aid policy, as one of the most important factors in successful innovation implementation. I encourage us all to think a little bit more about the context in which we are innovating, because it is mastering working within this context that can bring an innovation to life.
During a career panel with distinguished speakers, including former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, it became evident that the timeline USAID has to demonstrate impact is getting shorter and shorter; as Alex Deghan put it himself “the absence of acceptable failure can kill innovation”. Further compounding the barriers to bringing disruptive innovations to scale is the iterative process through which innovation takes place. The development of a truly disruptive innovation takes time, something that has been in short supply at USAID. How then can we orient ourselves to successfully innovate when the timeline for demonstrating results does not match the timeline of the innovators they are trying to support? The answer that resonated with me- “you”- was posed by Sheila Desai, Deputy Director for the Office of Food Security within the USAID/India Mission, as she spoke to a group of undergraduate and graduate level students interested in pursuing careers in development. She stressed that if the way things are being done will not work, we are the ones who need to push for change in the future.
While I believe it is of utmost importance to innovate and develop solutions to some of the biggest problems on our planet, if we do not think about this in the larger context of aid delivery and the challenges this brings, then we are not doing our innovations justice. Many believe that we have all the technological innovations we need in order to end poverty, hunger and the majority of issues in developing countries, and that the problem is not too little innovation but a lack of collaboration in a way that allows these innovations to be successful outside of the lab or a business plan. To make matters even more complicated, aid is increasingly becoming only one way of sharing innovations across the globe. Foreign direct investment is on the rise in developing countries and private industries are beginning to realize the long-term value of bringing solutions to these emerging markets. My time within HESN has challenged me to think outside of the box for solutions, consider all stakeholders and what each has to bring to the table and most importantly, consider context, including domestic aid policy, as one of the most important factors in successful innovation implementation. I encourage us all to think a little bit more about the context in which we are innovating, because it is mastering working within this context that can bring an innovation to life.
RSS Feed