Perspectives: Jara Pascual

How not to lose the whole performance of innovation

Researchers publish the results of their work in scientific journals. It is their professional goal and an essential step in pawing the career path. Even if they are the authors of inventions, usually such solutions are hidden from the rest of the world because neither society nor business reaches these articles, argues Jara Pascual, keynote speaker of this year's edition of the EuroScience Open Forum 2024. The author of 'Innovation and Collaboration in the Digital Era' and CEO at CollabWith says that to strengthen collaboration between universities, industry and society, we must bet on a culture of innovation.

Małgorzata Kłoskowicz, PhD: Today, we will discuss building a culture of innovation at universities. I want to start with an example. This week, I met a group of our researchers who built a special optical microscope attachment and patented it. During their research, they discovered a fascinating property of a crystal they were interested in. It turned out that their equipment was not sufficient to confirm or reject their hypothesis, so they designed an invention. Even though this solution may be used by many researchers in similar devices, it is not the scientists’ role to seek out business-science cooperation. Or maybe it is? What should be the following steps to transfer their product, valuable knowledge and curiosity to business and society?

Jara Pascual: There is a major problem that you have well described, namely a gap between what researchers conduct as innovations and the actual marketing and implementation of these inventions and research insights. On the one hand, researchers usually prepare an article presenting the results of scientific projects. That is their role in terms of academic purposes. This is expected of them. On the other hand, society and businesses have yet to read that kind of text. This patent is hidden from the rest of the world. Therefore, the risk is that it will not reach the public and consequently will not create the societal impact that makes such innovation worthwhile. The next step, to answer your question, is to bridge this gap through the development of targeted strategies.

M.K.: How and where should we share this information? Who should be responsible for building the university-business-society relationship?

J.P.: The innovative ecosystem actors share this information in a conscious and responsible manner. This requires being proactive and this involves involves multiple actors in the ecosystem: academics, professionals, industry and business, and, last but not least, the government. All of them should be curious about what is happening at universities. And the universities need to be active in effectively sharing their know-how. They have to be open to the rest of the world, but in a proper way—not only communicating for the sake of communication. This flow of information among different innovation ecosystem actors plays a crucial role in building fruitful cooperation. Without it, we have the invention but we lose the whole performance of innovation.

M.K.: I am wondering whether the academics are interested in transferring their patents to the industry and society. They are researchers who have to achieve their goals.

J.P.: Exactly. It is the issue of KPIs (key performance indicators). Let me add right away that I know many people have an allergic reaction to the craziness of KPIs. I want to emphasize that I am talking about very useful and wisely chosen KPIs. Usually, at universities, we have the number of teaching hours, the research conducted, and the quantity and quality of scientific articles published in journals. These are the most common KPIs formulated in the academic environment. This means we are missing the indicators related to collaboration with industry, for example, with start-ups. That is why most academics focus on things other than transferring their knowledge to the industry, which is understandable. They ask themselves: why should I invest my time and expertise in something not strictly related to my professional goals or development path? Let’s imagine that the KPIs at the university have changed, and we have included quantitative and qualitative KPIs that enhance the collaboration between the university, society, and industry. Academics would discover many great ways to achieve these goals.

M.K.:  Could you share some good examples of such KPIs?

J.P.: Some universities in Europe are performing very well, as evidenced by their annual reports. However, they may adopt different approaches. For instance, T.U. Delft University in the Netherlands produces an annual report based on percentages. They track growth and compile a 'to-do' list to elevate cooperation to a new level. It's important that the KPIs we're discussing are defined at the outset when crafting the strategy. Let me give you an example. If our goal is to increase the number of collaborations by 50%, what will we monitor to ensure we achieve this objective? Strategically, we must also consider what resources will be required to reach this goal. Additionally, I want to emphasize another point. First: it's crucial to clearly define the KPIs in black and white. Second: communicate these KPIs to your community, your university ecosystem. It's fundamental that all stakeholders are fully aware of the university's objectives. This is a game-changing step. We must prevent confusion and a vague sense of the overall direction. When there's a lot of confusion, individuals need to know which tasks they should complete and why. Otherwise, it can lead to frustration.

M.K.: The communication process is challenging. It’s not all about the numbers. We say nothing when we encourage people to complete this or that task because we need to increase the number of concluded agreements by 50% at the end of the academic year. On the universities’ websites, the number of such documents can usually be found in facts and figures. However, this number does not equate to innovation, does it?

J.P.: I agree with you. The number of agreements is not directly proportional to real innovation. It doesn't necessarily take many agreements to truly create innovation, although many people think so. Let me give you an example: we collaborate with a big company, conduct six months of negotiations, invest a lot of time, resources, and money to finally sign an agreement. After that, there is silence. We must acknowledge that we could have used all that time much more productively. Every type of cooperation requires a different way of collaborating, and it's a fundamental step-by-step journey. However, we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is to create real innovation. There is diversity between the number of agreements concluded and the actual innovation produced.

M.K.: What does this kind of diversity mean?

J.P.: The disparity is concretely explained when we look at the KPIs. Universities must be capable of setting goals and corresponding KPIs with the aim of achieving real innovation. These KPIs should monitor the actual impact that partnerships and agreements have on the ecosystem, people and society. An example is monitoring how knowledge is transmitted and shared in practice to assess the real impact of innovation rather than relying solely on the number of conducted agreements. This materializes, for example, in the offerings. We can build an offering of workshops prepared by our academics for companies willing to pay for them. Another idea is to allow our students to collaborate with different companies. A study in the U.K. by Dr. Caroline Downs. found that having students in companies increases innovation. For instance, universities can monitor how many students actually work in companies by collaborating with them. That is a great KPI that measures the real impact. Checking the companies’ KPIs could also be very useful. As university representatives, we may find many ways to help them achieve their goals. Achieving real innovation is possible only if we are in a state of constant collaboration with the industry. It's important to understand what the industry demands from the perspective of a university. The next step is to prepare as many valuable offers as we can.

M.K.: Now it’s time to present them to the business representatives.

J.P.: Twenty minutes or seconds and twenty slides are enough to help people connect the dots. I like to structure the process in terms of "useful boxes." What kind of elements, or boxes, do we need to increase the innovation ecosystem mindset, and what type of stuff do we need to fill these boxes with? By "stuff," I mean events, meetings, workshops, lectures, or projects we could run to reach our goals. This is where creative thinking starts.

The power of innovation ecosystem thinking involves planning a certain amount of time to focus on a particular box to kick it off. In this way, you have a structured framework that can help you understand where to focus your thinking.

M.K.: What kind of competencies could help us build the mindset of collaboration?

J.P.: All we need is an educational culture of innovation that encourages creativity. The authorities in universities and companies should use the triggers to create that type of workplace environment. It will be the basis for a space of new competencies.

An ecosystem mindset is important in understanding the main actors and the knowledge of that specific environment. The next step would be creating innovative leadership that brings people together. The ecosystem mindset means helping each other in this process, collaborating to "connect the dots”.

M.K.: How does the ecosystem mindset support building the culture of innovation?

J.P.: The ecosystem mindset plays a crucial role in promoting a culture of innovation within it.

At the mindset level, there are a lot of differences in terms of our countries, regions, and of course, our organizations. The culture of innovation is a part of the overall culture of the organization and can be understood in terms of our values. There may be a terrible culture where people gossip, do not help each other, and do not care. It is a toxic working culture where you can hear comments like, "I don’t understand why we need all of these changes. I don’t know what they want me to do and why. I have other things to do”. Now, let’s imagine something completely different: I have an idea. I know who I should contact. The feedback from the department is very positive: "Such a cool project, let’s do it together!" That is very useful. So, it’s all about the positive vibes, energy, and attitude. The main question is how to achieve this if the situation is like the first case. It is a fundamental transformation, and we should start it with innovation leadership, specifically transformational leadership, one of the most challenging roles. Leaders can inspire others to adopt a positive culture of innovation. Often, a concrete example set by a good leader is more effective.

M.K.: I don’t want to be the most critical person in the room, but we all know not all ideas will be implemented.

J.P.: Absolutely, this is an important point to mention. In my book, I wrote a lot about the grief of innovation, which is a super important issue to consider. We have a lot of wonderful ideas that are great for start-ups or different projects. Today, thousands of ideas are born around the world. Not all of these ideas will come to fruition. Somebody has to make a selection. This selection process must take into account many factors, including collaboration, money, programs, funding, time, effort, and, last but not least, our KPIs. It is very important to communicate to someone that even if their idea is excellent, they have to abandon it, that it was not selected for funding. Saying no to anyone is a tough task but necessary.

Once again, we need a wise leader who helps people manage this rejection, the death of the idea, and the grief, which may be a source of emotion-based criticism. This is very important for the culture of innovation. So, we are working with psychologists because grief is deeply related to that science. We ask them how we should manage it. The concept is taken from Sigmund Freud. He said that grief means losing the energy balance. You give a lot of energy to one idea or project, and then you do not receive a reward. Somebody has to help you and accompany you through this process.

M.K.: How can we face the death of our beloved idea?

J.P.: To deal with the rejection of our idea, we must understand that rejection is not a failure. It is a process of learning. There is space for failure if you have a competitive mindset, not a collaborative one. Who said we have to be perfect? We are penalized if we are not perfect in terms of grades. This creates frustration with perfection. We live in a culture of fear of being imperfect. But we must be aware that on the on the other side of fear is the culture of resilience. We know what we want to achieve, but we must figure out how to do it. It’s all about learning, being curious, and open to collaboration.

M.K.: I want to be a part of a community driven by a collaboration mindset.

J.P.: Initiating the transformation for innovation in a company or university must be a collective effort; it is more than a task for a single person. You have to empower the whole organization to understand the value of change and encourage them to join you to do it together—one by one. We need, once again, a good strategy. We need ambassadors in every department. We need the most enthusiastic people initially, not the most critical ones; it is important to leverage these people to get others involved in the process. We need good communication, and last but not least, we need an innovation manifesto prepared based on working with people. When everyone creates the manifesto, they feel responsible for it and will therefore be more engaged. Finally, there is another useful way to start transforming a company: working with journalists. Press and media can be leveraged. Then you can contact government representatives, representatives of business and society. The common goal must be to share a very strong message: we have a new identity and we are building a culture of innovation.

M.K.: Regarding communication, the European Science Open Forum 2024 (ESOF2024) is an excellent example of a platform to share the strengths of the city, region and seven universities organising this event together.

J.P.: It is crucial not to underestimate the importance of setting up hybrid conferences. If we are not in the same place, how can we collaborate? You could say, in a sense, "If I don’t see you, you don’t exist." This is a major barrier to the creation of new collaborations and requires effort to overcome. When you organize something locally, digital tools come to the rescue, making the event open to everyone so that access to knowledge is not blocked. After the ESOF2024 conference, for example, the guests will be far apart and may soon forget about this experience. At Collabwith, we built a professional digital tool to create a conference micro-ecosystem. It lets people invite others to their network and follow up with a chat. It is also a good practice to record speeches and share them, for example. The idea is to give other people access and widely communicate the content of the event. Only in this way can open and global communities be created.

M.K.: It may also make it easier to believe that life changes science. Speaking of that, what does this year’s conference motto mean to you?

J.P.: We are not islands, and we are not alone in our laboratories and departments. It is impossible not to interact within our society; we go home every day to meet our families and friends and engage in other activities. We are human beings and we influence each other. We should think about how we can strengthen this natural relationship—this is the key point when we talk about collaboration.

M.K.: Thank you for the interview.