
10 minute read
THOMAS RAMGE AND RAFAEL LAGUNA DE LA VERA THE BIG DISRUPTION
» Innovare « means » to renew «. It does not mean » make a little better «.
A disruptive innovation fundamentally changes our life for the better—it does not just make it a little more comfortable. Using science and technology, disruptive innovators find a new solution to a relevant problem. Disruptive innovations often demolish old markets and create new ones. They have an economically disruptive effect and threaten those who only innovate step by step in path dependencies, i.e., improving successful technologies in small increments. Sometimes, disruptive innovations go through dirty phases before they stop causing harm and start providing major benefits. If a big scientific and technical disruption is successful, it can be seen in images and statistics, in language and art. The world looks different afterwards, and we perceive it differently. Sometimes, disruptive innovations even have the power to crash political systems and create new ones. Disruptive innovations are often the basis of social innovations.
The first cultivated plant was a disruptive innovation: einkorn wheat around 10,000 years ago. The invention of the sailboat 6,000 years ago changed the world, as did the nail, cement and paper later on. Book printing and optical lenses were disruptive innovations, as were the steam engine, electric current, the camera and the airplane, of course. Many innovative disruptions came out of Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries, which still strongly affect our lives today, including the X-ray machine, automobile, synthetic fertilizer and aspirin. Double-entry bookkeeping, industrial steel production and the production line innovated value creation globally in a disruptive way. Was penicillin the greatest disruptive innovation in medical history? Or was it the toilet? Or birth control pills? The digital computers of the 1940s triggered the digital revolution and a host of disruptive innovations, including the microchip, the PC and, of course, the Internet, which has fundamentally changed our lives more than any other new technology over the past three decades.
Thanks to the first Internet smartphone created by Steve Jobs in 2007, we now carry a disruptive innovation in our pocket and cannot keep our hands off it. The disruptive innovation of the mRNA vaccine, with science and technology from Mainz and Tübingen, Germany, has helped us to overcome the biggest crisis since the Second World War—the COVID pandemic—and arm ourselves against new epidemics and pandemics. What is next? No-one can know for sure, because unpredictability is inherent to disruptive innovation. What we can do, though, is to help the disruption to come about. The Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation, for example, has been searching for a radically better solution in an open idea challenge since the summer of 2021, with which pharmacologists will be able to develop a large number of antiviral medications much, much faster in the future. Science and technology have been astoundingly unsuccessful when it comes to the development of antiviral drugs. Despite the increasing danger, embarrassingly few new active agents are approved. Ultimately, what is needed here is a big disruption with a medication with broad-spectrum effect similar to antibiotics—except one which is effective against viral, rather than bacterial, pathogens.
At SPRIND, we are technology optimists. We are convinced that science and technology will find many answers to the big challenges of our time over the coming decades. They will bring us abundant green energy from the wind & sun, hydroelectric power and nuclear fusion. They might be so cheap that it hardly makes sense to charge for them anymore. Thanks to CO2-free energy for less than two cents per kilowatt hour, poverty and hunger could be drastically reduced across the globe. We could use it to remove large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stop climate change. This will make the world considerably more peaceful. As a result, fewer people would have to flee their home country.
In the meantime, biomedical researchers are understanding the blueprints of life better all the time. Through genetic engineering and the health data revolution, we are on the scientific threshold of turning the big illnesses into the smaller problems: cancer and dementia, circulatory illnesses & auto-immune diseases, mental illness and paralysis, blindness and severe hearing impairments. We hope it will be possible to slow down the aging process of cells, enabling us to grow old in greater health—perhaps even spending time with our great-great-grandchildren.
Thanks to science and technology, we will preserve biodiversity and strengthen conservation. It is with ultra-intensive agriculture—ideally vertically and with resistant breeds—that land usage for food production can be reduced. Hopefully, meat will soon no longer come from fattening farms, but nature-identical from a giant petri dish. We will fly electrically in autonomous drones which do not need roads. For long-distance routes, there are CO2-neutral fuels. Perhaps we will soon take a (time) shortcut through space when flying to Australia. Disruptive-innovation digital education will be as much fun as a good computer game, with robo-teachers and human instructors who teach peer learning in small groups. This type of education could potentially make a person a little addicted.
We will dare to make a prediction. In 10 years, we will all be using AI-assistants who will support us in making decisions, representing our interests in the process—not those of Amazon, Google or Apple. Over the next 20 years, we will develop a system for diverting large asteroids headed toward Earth. By 2050, we hope to found a permanent colony on Mars, though not everyone may be prepared to ride along. Why? Because it will help us humans to rediscover our old pioneering spirit and once again develop the courage to dare to disrupt on a truly massive scale. This spirit of discovery is as urgently needed now as it was during the time of Christopher Columbus and Marco Polo.
Once again, new technology has to straighten out the mistakes of old technology. Only through innovative disruptions will we get away from the path dependencies that we have taken to since industrialization occurred, and in which we seem to be stuck like the needle of a record player in the groove of a record with a deep scratch. For Germany, the land of the automobile and gap dimensions, this holds especially true. From a global perspective, only radically better technology can help us to provide for the growing world population, preserve world peace and avoid further regional wars in a resource-conserving way. First off, though, we have to stop believing a contemporary myth. We are living in less innovative times than most people believe.
Progress over the past 15 years has, at best, occurred at a toddling pace. The supposedly disruptive platforms from Silicon Valley solve problems we never actually had. We were already easily able to shop before Amazon, go on vacation before Airbnb and order a taxi by phone before Uber. Some of us at SPRIND constantly also hang around on Twitter and do not want to do without the convenience of some digital services. A self-driving car would be a great thing, too, for sure. Although even this innovative disruption would seem to be considerably smaller than the invention of the bicycle to us. The bicycle did not make traveling more comfortable, but it multiplied the range of movement of a majority of the population. It was an innovation of empowerment. The self-driving car turns us into passengers. What we currently see all around us is the simulation of innovation. Innovation theater. A rapid technological standstill.
Maybe we do not need any more apps, gadgets, platforms and digital business models that supposedly make our lives easier, but which actually infantilize and monitor us. We do not exactly need every type of apparent innovation for which nearly unlimited risk capital is available worldwide. We need disruptive innovations that improve the lives of as many people as possible to the greatest extent possible. When searching for new applications, we find useful and meaningful benefits when we place our focus on human needs, from basic livelihood to the possibility of individual self-actualization based on the ethic of British philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham: maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
The question, though, is who actually brings technology into the world that maximizes the happiness of as many people as possible and not the profits of a few big-tech companies? In the language of SPRIND, the answer is HiPos (high potentials). These disruptive innovators are nerds with a mission. They are interested in a specialized field to a degree that others find hard to understand, bordering on maniacal obsession. HiPos are unusually resilient to setbacks and they have a deep-rooted desire to make an impact with their work. Their enthusiasm is contagious. HiPos electrify their teams. At SPRIND, we have had the great fortune of getting to know a bunch of them and starting projects with them as well.
How can the state be entrepreneurial for the benefit of disruptive innovation in a meaningful way? Using two different models, the US and China demonstrate how an ‘entrepreneurial state’ (Mariana Mazzucato) successfully accelerates technological development, keeps value creation in the country of origin and, of course, pursues geopolitical interests, often at the expense of technological sovereignty in Europe. When founding SPRIND, we took a close look at the American innovation agency DARPA, among other things—how it works and why it generates disruptive innovations one after another, like the Internet, GPS and rescue robots. DARPA even got significantly involved with mRNA technology.
Germany and the European Union as a whole can learn to emerge as risk-loving stakeholders in the ‘Valley of Death of Innovation’ from entrepreneur countries. The valley begins where support for basic research ends, but the technology is not yet mature enough for a market. Venture capitalists are nowhere near as venturesome as their name suggests. The state has to increasingly utilize its purchasing power by ordering highly innovative products before they are fully commercially developed. This does not necessarily have to be vaccines or quantum computers. Cost-effective heat pumps & facade insulation, 20 GW/h wind parks and 100,000 residences built to a good ecological standard for EUR 1,500 per square meter also have a disruptive innovation effect on society. As well, successful entrepreneurial countries like the US, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and, of course, China massively co-invest in innovation, taking a very nice cut for their national economies in the process. The state and society have a different return flow model from that of venture capital funds. For the latter, only money counts. For societies, it is also about better health, good work, a clean environment, higher tax revenue, successful structural changes and geopolitical aspirations.
It is worth noting that capital is not the scarce resource here. The financial assets of private households alone in Germany are worth around EUR 8 trillion. The scare resource is risk intelligence. Ultimately, we have to understand that, in times of technological paradigm changes, the biggest risk is to not take risks—to rigidly continue following the current linear course. Yet that is exactly what we are doing with our national economic obsession with ‘squeaky-clean assets’ and our skepticism toward venture capital, in particular when it comes to forging ahead during the growth and exit phases and not fiddling about with the early-phase investment of start-ups. What is even more alarming is the fact that the small number of highly innovative German start-ups which do exist are snapped up by nonEuropean investors as soon as they stand out for their success and hundreds of millions are required for the final leap to a global company with a technological leadership position. Five percent of EUR 8 trillion is 400 billion. This would be a sensible distribution of risk for a society which would like to—and ultimately must—have a hand in shaping its technological future and financially participating in it as well.
The good news is that we have the researchers, we have the engineers and we have the capital we need. We just have to let the disruptive innovators actually do it. The German state can help create a new culture of open innovation through innovative funding policies. We believe in this, and we are working on it.
PS: Some people will perceive our vision of the future as being too technology driven and too optimistic about technology. Some will even see this optimism as naivety. We can understand this, at least to a degree. As German philosopher Odo Marquard has put it, the new has to prove that it is better than the old. Not the other way around. This is true, but it seems to us that the old and proven are no longer really viable, considering the multitude of existential threats faced by humanity.
PPS: Pessimism is a waste of time and puts you in a bad mood.
WHEN SEARCHING FOR NEW APPLICATIONS, WE FIND USEFUL AND MEANINGFUL BENEFITS WHEN WE PLACE OUR FOCUS ON HUMAN NEEDS:
MAXIMIZING HAPPINESS AND MINIMIZING UNHAPPINESS.
Structure
SPRIND IS A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) WHOLLY OWNED BY THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH AND THE FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND CLIMATE ACTION.
SCIENTIFIC ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT
PRESS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS PODCAST
INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
ANALYSIS AND REVIEW
CHALLENGE OFFICE
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIC PROJECTS
PARTNER MANAGEMENT & NETWORKS COMMITTEE SECRETERIAT
OFFICE MANAGEMENT
PURCHASING & PROCUREMENT
HUMAN RESOURCES
CONTROLLING
ACCOUNTING
IT/ INFRASTRUCTURE
MARKETING
LEGAL AFFAIRS
OPERATIONAL & BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
The Board Of Sprind Gmbh
MARIO
BRANDENBURG
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
DR. KRISTINA KLAS
FEDERAL MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DR.ING. E. H.
PETER LEIBINGER
TRUMPF GMBH + CO. KG (CHAIRMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD)
DR. FRANZISKA
BRANTNER
FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND CLIMATE ACTION
DR. H. C. SUSANNE KLATTEN
SKION GMBH
HOLGER MANN
GERMAN BUNDESTAG
PROF. DIETMAR
HARHOFF, PH. D.
MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INNOVATION AND COMPETITION
RONJA KEMMER
GERMAN BUNDESTAG
PROF. DR. BIRGITTA WOLFF
UNIVERSITY OF WUPPERTAL (VICE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SUPERVISORY BOARD)
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SHAREHOLDER
PROF. DR.ING.
INA SCHIEFERDECKER
AT THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
DR. DANIELA BRÖNSTRUP
AT THE FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR ECONOMIC AFFAIRS AND CLIMATE ACTION
Project Llcs
FOLLOWING A SUCCESSFUL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION PROCESS, SPRIND, AT PRESENT, HAS THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH PROJECT SUBSIDIARIES FOR PROJECTS WITH PROMISING BREAKTHROUGH POTENTIAL WHICH ARE FUNDED WITH BETWEEN 4 AND 15 MILLION EUROS ANNUALLY BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
DURING THE EVALUATION PROCESS, VALIDATION STUDIES CAN BE COMMISSIONED TO CLARIFY INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO A PROJECT APPLICATION.
Challenges
WITH SPRIND CHALLENGES, TEAMS WITH BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATION POTENTIAL CURRENTLY RECEIVE BETWEEN 500,000 AND 3 MILLION EUROS PER COMPETITION STAGE. FUNDING IS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF A PRECOMMERCIAL PROCUREMENT FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.