So be, before we jump into today's lecture, let's remind ourselves, why are we here, what are we hoping to learn, what are we doing, where are we in the process? So, in the last lecture, we talked about building an innovation creed and setting up some very high level direction for the types of ideas that are going to work for you, and that are going to be thought of as good ideas for you. So now what we want to do is move towards that second tool. Really, more of the, the main tool for innovation management is this idea filter. And we are going to work ourselves towards a default filter that I'm giving you. It has 16 factors that should be measured to help your idea be successful for you. What we're going to do next though, before we get to that, is walk through from whence came those 16 factors. Who says? And, and where did they come from? Because the overall answer, I'll tell you right up front. There's not 16 factors. Maybe there's 20. Maybe there's, some people think there's 40. Maybe there's only four that you ought to focus on. So, these 16 are not perfect. Everyone in, in giving advice on innovation management and technology commercialization is not going to agree with these 16. But I guarantee you, and from my studies, 80% of it is going to be aligned. You know, maybe worded a little differently or written down a little differently, or talked about a little differently. But overall, it's that classic 80-20 rule. If you want to argue about the 20%, you'll, you'll, you'll have 5 to 10 years worth of work and have fun. But overall, people who study entrepreneurship and successes and failures and innovation are going to agree on most of these factors. So here is a lecture on, from, from where those factors originated. So if your going to, if you're going to go out and try to find a, a job you, you might find it helpful to go take a lot of courses on how to interview, or how to build a resume, and how to put yourself forward in a good way, and that will probably be very helpful. But you could take the opposite approach. You could go on the other side of that interviewing process. And if you want to be hired, you could go and, and go to classes on how to hire someone. And you could learn about managers and who do they actually choose. How do they pick and choose, how do they read a resume, how do they do an interview such that they'll pick the right person for the job and go on the other side of that magnifying glass. So that's exactly what I encourage you to do about technology commercialization. So, you're, you're somewhere on the, the left hand side of this, this chart, right? You're, you have a technology or you're a researcher or you're a licensing manager. You got something you're trying to push out there. And you're going to be interviewed, and you hope someone hires you figuratively. So hiring might mean they're going to give you money. They're going to invest. They're going to come dedicate Saturdays and Sundays from now on to help you. They're going to buy your product. They're going to acquire your technology. Right? So if you, if you go on the other side and see how people on the other side of tech commercialization, your customers, how are they viewing why technology is going to be successful. Then you can understand how this technology commercialization process can be a little more pulled out there. And you can not push it as much forward. Or at least you understand the factors by which the people on the right hand side are going to check off the check list. This is good. This is good. This is bad. This is bad. So that's the overall basis behind the idea of filter. It's collecting a series of stories and books and information and talking with scientists that study innovation and, and, and failures, as to what did people see are the top challenges that face technology commercialization. So, we're starting off right off the bat with saying you're going to file, you're probably going to fail. Tech comp, technology commercialization's very difficult. I said at the introduction you know it, it's very rare, very rarely occurs and it's very very challenging. Well let's look at those challenges right up front. You're going to fail, here's why. I'm going to tell you why you're going to fail. And that's how we're going to start off. And that's, that's where we get these factors for success. So what, what are the top challenges that stunt technology commercialization? Here they are. And I'm going to go through them individually and talk a little about each one. Bethinking yourself about experiences you've had and maybe you nod your head to some of these. And maybe you shake your head to others and say, I don't really understand that or that doesn't seem really applicable. But try to have some introspection and understand that there is a lot of credence behind these reasons why technology commercialization is stunted. Not necessarily even failed, but it's taking a long time or it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. You can also think of this, these interviewers, right? They're holding up the sign, I'm sorry I'm not interested. And during that process, when do they hold up their little sign to say you know what, I'm not interested. Well here's why. First of all, number one. These are not in order, by the way. They're, they're all tied for first, and different ones show up at different times. The team, or the person, is, is un-coachable. All right. They, and it's a pretty big reason. It's not always talked about. But it's a personality kind of thing. the, on the other side of that magnifying glass, we hear things like, I'm doing, you know, I'm doing it my way either directly or indirectly. I'm doing this my way. Don't need any help. You know, I, I'm brilliant. I got it. the, the world is going to beat a pathway to my door because I, I'm brilliant quite frankly. And I, I don't want to listen to what you're telling me, because you don't anything about, about my stuff. I'm going to be the CEO. I'm in charge of this,. I, I've been a scientist my whole life, but I'm going to run this business. And that is one of the fastest ways that people on that other side of that magnifying glass tend to ru, tend to run away. Blinded by love. Being passionate about your idea is very, very critical. But again, think in the continuum. Everything's a continuum. Some people get so blinded by love that they, they really don't look at any other ideas. They're just going after one idea. Or they're just going after one rendition of their idea. This is how we're going to do it. Of course, some staying power and, and some consistency of purpose is very important, but it can get carried away. That, that teams are, or, founders or entrepreneurs, they're not willing to consider anything, anything else. And then the other one that's kind of in this category, is kind of a personality. Categories is broken, broken bridge. That there's a, there's a misa, there's a misalignment that whoever you are talking to on the other side of that magnifying glass just doesn't understand you. You're speaking a different language. They're business, you're technical, often in tech commercialization or, or, or the opposite. Or, for whatever reason, you're just not able to communicate with each other. And that really, seriously, stunts your technology commercialization. Second reason that technology commercialization takes a long time or is, is actually a failure often or certainly stunted, is it's lop-sided. Whoever is running with the idea, a person, or a team, they have gone super deep in a few areas. Often for tech commercialization. They've dug into the science, and all they want to talk about is science, and they've got all kinds of stuff on science, and it's brilliant. And they can hold a wonderful two hour, four hour, all day working session with other scientists about that technology. But they have not considered so many of the other factors. So, many of us on the other side of that magnifying glass, see right through that very quickly. And not interested in two hours on how brilliant the technology is. Or digging into page 25 of your white paper. Not interested in that. And really see through that the other sides are very, very thin. Very little work has been done in some of these other factors.
