Frank Devittof NUI Maynooth argues that our current innovation strategy is wrongheaded

FIVE YEARS ago a study by Forfás, Creating Ireland's Innovation Society: The Next Strategic Step, said we had to become an "Innovation Society" if we were then to continue to prosper.

The Government's response was published in the Strategy for Science Technology and Innovation 2006-2013. Like other government policies, it's framed in a paradigm around a sequential logic that "research" begets "technology" which begets "innovation". Of course, technology is of fundamental economic importance in the modern world, but what is its link with innovation and how can technology lead to a sustainably innovative economy?

There are two main problems with the assumption that "research" leads to "technology", which leads to "innovation". First, although research in the areas of mathematics, science and the like is necessary for a vibrant innovation economy, it is by no means sufficient. In the popular parlance around brain function, this linear innovation "process" is decidedly rational, or "left-brain" only.

For a small, prospectively innovative economy, technology cannot originate mainly from indigenous research but through absorption of the myriad technology developments occurring ever more intensively and extensively around the globe.

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas Friedman in his book The World is Flatdescribed a globalised world, with ubiquitous technology, where developing countries are catching up economically with the western world at an astonishing rate. For example, China and India have average annual GDP growth rates of 11 per cent and 9 per cent respectively over the last four years and much of this growth comes from technology-based industries.

Research is new knowledge creation. Yet innovation doesn't directly require new knowledge creation. It's most effective and efficient using available knowledge from all sources. That can be in-house or external, recently developed or longstanding knowledge. The knowledge sources are now global in range, developing rapidly and ever more easily accessible.

Absorbing external technology, where possible, is more efficient than creating new technology. As was first espoused by economists Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal in 1990, our "absorptive capacity" is a driver of innovation.

Sometimes, we need to create our own new technology, through research. But innovation is best supported by training people to make the most of existing knowledge, from all over the world. Thus, government policy must seek to increase the stock of graduates in the areas of science, engineering and technology who are trained to look outwards, expertly and vigorously scanning, absorbing and leveraging ideas that may already exist. This is in priority to, not to the exclusion of, the production of new intellectual property (IP), which may bring about an occasional, welcome byproduct.

Unfortunately, this is not a current emphasis of our policy in these fields, with the Government's policy response barely going beyond cursory references to absorptive capacity. Instead the current policies place undue emphasis on developing all-new intellectual property as the main output of university research in these areas.

It does not explore the large gap that exists between new technological knowledge (research output) and innovation, and it ignores the relative weakness of patents as protection for appropriating commercial gains from innovation.

Too often in policy discussions, research and research expenditure are promoted as being tantamount to innovation achievement. This fails to recognise the fundamental difference between research and innovation. As it has been succinctly stated before: research converts money to knowledge; innovation converts knowledge to money.

It is clear we cannot sustain a successful economy using a technology-driven, left-brain approach only. Unfortunately, the disciplines of science, engineering and technology training do not readily accommodate right-brain functions such as user-experience empathy, intuition, creative expression, uncertainty and holism. Yet, these functions are essential for transforming technology from the abstract to the personal. And personalisation is widely considered to be essential for modern successful innovation.

In a recent book, The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-created Value Through Global Networks(2008), respected business authors CK Prahalad and MS Krishnan say: "Value is [now] based on unique, personalised experiences of consumers. Value is shifting from products to solutions to experiences."

Technology wasn't always set apart from the right brain. Leonardo da Vinci was an excellent example of a whole-brained performer/technologist/artist (although perhaps without the business acumen necessary for economic-value innovation). He wasn't alone. It's really only in the last 200 years since the industrial revolution accelerated development of scientific and technological specialisation that depth of study overcame breadth of knowledge, and the domains of influence for left brain and right brain separated.

These are converging again in the 21st century, driven by competitiveness in the globalised economy, where all assets are required to be utilised. And it is through whole-brained innovation that competitive advantage will be achieved in this post-technology world.

Achieving personalised, service-type user experiences provides an example of whole-brained application. Controlling costs and quality in a high-volume, personalised product/service delivery requires use of appropriately designed, sophisticated technology and information systems. This is the stuff of left-brain thinking.

However, it also requires a heightened sense of vision, empathy and understanding of the users' experiences and needs - all right-brain thinking - in order to apply this technology effectively.

Almost every major business is alert to or already following this trend, albeit still at an early stage. Among the most notable is Apple, where its success of recent years is due to whole-brained innovation transcending technology in products like the iMac, iPod and iPhone.

There are four clear messages that need to be emphasised and driven into practice at all policy levels.

First, in a post-technology world, technology is a commodity: go out and buy the best quality at the best price and value that is available, before spending more money developing it, if at all possible.

This is not just avoiding re-inventing the wheel. Where so many others are inventing wheels, gears and the like, it is time for Ireland Inc. to concentrate on innovating new bicycles.

Second, concentrate on how to use technology - not on how to create it. Better still, concentrate on why to use it. What is the motivation for a new innovation? Who is it for? Why do they need it? What function(s) do they need? What (lifecycle) experience will satisfy the user?

Third, follow the example of one of the world's largest companies, Procter Gamble, by adopting the motto "Connect Develop" rather than "Research Develop" to illustrate the emphasis it places on connecting with global partners as a route to innovation.

Finally, create more industrial architects, now known as "product designers". When designing a house, an architect is trained to understand your needs, understand building technologies and create new concepts for your approval.

In the industrial world, this role is filled by product designers who combine knowledge of technology with deep user understanding, creativity and visualisation to create new concepts for satisfying user experiences.

Jonathan Ive, as chief designer at Apple, led its design-driven innovation renaissance since the late 1990s, unsurprisingly followed by a strong business revival.

"Product designers" are the innovation architects of the future. They use right-brain creativity and conceptualisation to drive innovation. They buy in external technology or use internal technology as available to fulfil the requirements for their creations, but they are not driven by either. Product design leverages global technology in order creatively to maximise customer and supplier value.

In a post-technology world, globalised technology needs to be leveraged by user-inspired creativity, left brain leveraged by right. Whole-brain innovation provides a differentiating and efficient approach to sustained economic success.

• Frank Devitt is senior lecturer and head of the department of electronic engineering at NUI Maynooth, where he lectures in entrepreneurship. He has worked in technology businesses for more than 20 years, as founder, business manager and engineer, with SMEs and large multinational companies