UTVECKLING. ”Ifjol var första gången som de digitala prenumeranterna i Sverige blev fler än de som bara prenumererar på dagstidningen via papper. Vore det inte fantastiskt om vi nu helt skrotade papperstidningen och på så sätt påskyndade den tekniska utvecklingen?” Opulens chefredaktör Stefan Bergmark har en nostalgisk framtidsdröm.

Hemma hos oss får vi numera morgontidningen, Sydsvenskan, i pappersformat endast fredag till och med söndag. Övriga av veckans dagar läser jag den digitalt vilket innebär ständiga flashbacks och ibland till och med att jag för ett ögonblick blir förvirrad.

Igår morse toppades exempelvis fredagsnumrets förstasida med rubriken ”Tre sprängningar i tät följd”. Oj tänkte jag, som ändå bor i Malmö och därmed med svenska mått mätt är van vid bombdåd. Men seriesprängningar två nätter i rad! Sekunden senare insåg att det var samma händelser jag redan läst om, fast digitalt då, föregående morgon och därefter tagit del av i riksmedia under hela dagen. Även B-delens förstasida toppades igår av en flashback, om premiären för en designfestival jag läst om tidigare i veckan.

Jag brukar säga att jag i grunden är en 1900-talsmänniska. Blev vuxen innan Berlinmuren föll och i barndomshemmet hade vi, eftersom pappa också var journalist, fyra tidningar i brevlådan på frukostbordet och inte sällan också bägge kvällstidningarna till middagen. Jag älskar således förstås papperstidningen, men inte heller en ung spoling behöver vara särskilt estetiskt sinnad för att se att den fortfarande layoutmässigt är överlägsen de digitala formaten.

Lika lätt är det att se papperstidningens alla nackdelar. Förutom ovan nämnda senfärdighet är den kostnadskrävande att producera och distribuera och inte särskilt miljövänlig. Servrarna som tillhandahåller de digitala tidningarna gör förstås också klimatavtryck. Men de står ju ändå där och blinkar och surrar, eller vad moderna servrar anno 2021 nu gör, oavsett hur många eller få papperstidningar vi trycker. För nästan all journalistik som idag ges ut på papper digitaliseras också.

Det är ju en papperstidning, fast digital då och inte e-tidningen utan en med de redan existerande interaktiva finesser den förra saknar, jag här fantiserar om.

Ifjol var första gången som de digitala prenumeranterna i Sverige blev fler än de som bara prenumererar på dagstidningen via papper. Kanske talar jag nu i egen sak, Opulens är ju trots allt en nättidning, men vore det inte fantastiskt om vi nu helt skrotade papperstidningen och på så sätt påskyndade den tekniska utvecklingen? Utan att vara det minsta insatt i vilka utmaningar det innebär för ingenjörskonsten är jag ändå övertygad om att det inte är raketforskning att göra den digitala tidningen visuellt lika attraktiv som papperstidningen. Säg till exempel en liten projektor i fickformat, varför inte integrerad i mobilen, som kan projicera upp en tidningssida i tabloidformat med plats för spalter och bilder i olika storlekar och en kreativ och varierad redigering på varje sida man bläddrar fram. Eller något annat, vad vet jag. Omöjligt lär det inte vara i alla fall.

Ja, ni hör. Det är ju en papperstidning, fast digital då och inte e-tidningen utan en med de redan existerande interaktiva finesser den förra saknar, jag här fantiserar om. Förmodligen en typisk dröm för en 1900-talsmänniska som lever i fel århundrade.

The post Jag längtar efter en digital papperstidning, värd namnet first appeared on Opulens.

INNOVATION. Ibrahim Mo, against all odds in the mid-1990s, set up a telecom business in the middle of nowhere in Central Africa, only to completely change the way of life in that part of the planet 10 years later. This is a wonderful example of what market generating innovations are about, and this is the way they can reshape the third world. Instead of aiming at something new they aim at the adaptation of existing technology to new settings, at addressing the needs of so-called non-consumers, i.e. people that for a variety of reasons have not yet benefited from a particular product or service, or are not even aware of its existence.

Can adaptation qualify as an innovation, you may ask? Indeed it can! Innovation is the generation of new added value. It may be related but is far from identical with the idea of an invention that is centred around newness and novelty and not added value. If they are often confused, it may be because of the one-sided academic dominance over the area of innovation. Indeed academia understands and practices well the invention idea but perhaps not so much that of innovation.

Market generation innovations are mostly about adaptation to context and circumstance, and contrary to what some may think this is no easy feat at all. If we indeed accept this definition, then what can ever be more innovative that even be more value-adding that the above example. Or what Richard Leftley did for the Zambian poor. He was trying unsuccessfully for many years to introduce low-cost insurance schemes until one day his team realized that the limited response was only because the three information fields requested for registration to his service were too much and that people in that part of the world were not at all comfortable disclosing their age.

This slight change opened up a huge market in front of him, and that was an example of a true disruption: a spectacular case of a market generating innovation, one that created 55 million new consumers in the broader region and also pulled in social infrastructure for their support. This powerful dipole of the new market generating innovation and its linked support infrastructure is what can result in a unique impact on poverty relief.

Market generating innovation, inspired by the realities of the emerging economies, and because of the social infrastructure it gradually generates, would be the most decisive and far-reaching help that the EU could ever deliver to these countries. Instead of the usual handouts that often turn out to be a sheer waste of money, market generating innovation comes with all sorts of multipliers that generate massive local impact and prosperity.

I would even add that market generating innovation is the type of innovation the most relevant to public research because it contributes to social well being more than any other type of product or process innovation. This is why it is quite sad to notice that market generating innovation does not show up as a priority in the EU research and innovation (R&I) agenda.

Typically it may be considered as a welcome by-product, at best hidden behind more conventional types of innovation. Market generating innovation is not even acknowledged as something necessarily distinct in the mainstream definitions; and this, perhaps surprisingly, applies also to OECD/Eurostat that is very active in the area of defining innovation, in its widely referenced Oslo Manual. This is although for OECD the development of the third world has special relevance; it would have been most natural for this organization to prioritize market generating innovations that are so relevant for the prosperity of the third world.

Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen first introduced the concept of a market generating innovation in his breathtaking “The Prosperity Paradox” (2019). Unfortunately, Clayton passed away in January 2020 but has left a strong legacy behind him. This legacy has much influenced me in my attempt to critically review the EU R&I agenda from a multitude of perspectives in my recent book: Publicly Funded Research & Innovation in the EU – Unlocking its public value, in the EU and beyond that can be downloaded from Scribd or purchased on Amazon. 

The post Redefining innovation in the EU and building instruments for third world development first appeared on Opulens.

IDEAS. Has it ever happened to you that you came across a product, an invention, or service and realized that it was your idea? How did it make you feel? As we know, only a small % of ideas turn into something that works.

Why does it happen? What is stopping people with great ideas? There can be a countless number of reasons why we stop before starting.

Firstly, it’s difficult. We are afraid to start something because it’s scary and unknown. For a long time, I was fully involved in someone else’s cause that wasn’t aligned with who I am just because I didn’t believe it was possible to develop my own.

At some point, I realized that it will be more difficult to keep investing myself in something I don’t believe in than to go on my own path. I may not see the whole road ahead, but the path in front is enough to keep moving forward.

Another typical reason is – it’s not a good time right now. We may have a million excuses for not starting something, and many of them may look valid at the time because in that state of mind we aren’t open to options and possibilities.

We find reasons for not starting now due to doubts that kill our motivation. Afterwards, we suffer and regret the lost time. I just started finding the antidote for my doubts, convincing myself that – Now is the time.

Analysis – paralysis. When we are unsure in which direction to move, we tend to overthink even things we were certain about. We tell ourselves that we don’t know enough, aren’t experienced enough, aren’t ready yet, still need to do more research.

At some point, I realized that I just need to act, otherwise everything will stay in the theory stage.

Last but not least, it can be about being stuck in a bad experience. When we dwell on something that didn’t work, we deprive ourselves of the lessons that we were supposed to learn, lessons that would aid us in the process further. This creates an unwillingness to continue trying.

It was essential for me to shift my mindset from beating myself up for bad decisions to taking them as learning experiences. Results are a reflection of our actions.

The post Might-Have-Been first appeared on Opulens.