Technological innovation: one story, two methods
On 7 February, Forward — Switzerland's leading forum on innovation for SMEs — took place. A unique opportunity to compare innovation in higher education institutions with that of outsourcing firms.
A forum for comparing experiences
Organised by EPFL, PME Magazine, and Le Temps on the theme "Digital turn: organising myself to innovate", the Forward forum brought together companies and higher education institutions — two different worlds. Among the verbatim comments left on the website (https://forward-sme.epfl.ch), one reads: "Excellent event, well done! A good mix between business reality, connection with EPFL, and specialist expertise." This "confrontation" reveals the existence of two parallel and complementary worlds of innovation that are worth examining.
Costs, responsiveness, and patents
When a company entrusts its innovation to a third party, it must identify that party's competencies, references, costs, timelines, and capacity to manage confidentiality. In this analysis, we set aside competencies and references, which are obviously paramount and can be found among various players. Cost then often emerges as the primary selection criterion. In both cases — whether dealing with an engineering firm or a university — the applicant should know that they may be able to obtain subsidies for the development of their innovation (SPEI, Innosuisse…). There is a general assumption that the "firm" is more expensive than the Institute. But hourly or fixed-price billing structures that are available there can be fairer and allow greater flexibility — especially when the guarantee of results is taken into account.
A second factor is the "time-to-market" imperative: some companies face very tight deadlines, and their partner's responsiveness will therefore be an added value to prioritise. While engineering firms are accustomed to this kind of reactiveness, academia is tied to research and the production of scientific literature, and as a result tends to operate on long timescales.
Finally, the last point: confidentiality — a prerequisite for every innovative project — cannot be reduced to a simple piece of paper. It requires a genuine discipline in working practices. Managing all the issues related to patents requires putting numerous safeguards in place and being able to mobilise intellectual property experts.
One must be aware of these differences in order to choose the right innovation partner. Failing to pay attention to them would be equivalent to committing blindly.
Industrial culture and scientific potential
Since every innovation is unique, one must define its ambitions precisely in order to better target the right partner.
A higher education institution will inevitably be better positioned to respond to an innovative project aimed at producing a state-of-the-art review that would require lengthy research work. It is best placed to mobilise high scientific potential resources to meet an innovative challenge involving cutting-edge knowledge. Academia has easier access to the latest studies and is therefore well positioned to carry out technological monitoring.
An engineering firm, on the other hand, will position itself more naturally on everything relating to industrial culture. Because its day-to-day work is filled with this kind of experience, it will be better placed to manage the tasks at the downstream end of the innovation journey: certification, production files, industrialisation…
Let us also add that it is this same industrial culture that gives firms greater flexibility and the capacity to combine expertise and multidisciplinarity — an undeniable advantage not always found in university settings.
Healthy competition and complementarity
As we have just done, one can make generalisations about the respective capacities of firms and universities to innovate. It remains true, however, that an attitude such as the "fresh perspective" — a prerequisite for any innovative approach — will depend on the individual. As a result, this quality can be equally shared by academics and engineers. Let us not forget that in some projects, the two structures may be called upon to collaborate — particularly when an engineering firm develops and industrialises a technology born of research carried out in a laboratory. It is therefore far from our intention to set these two entities against each other: they are what makes our country strong and distinctive, recognised worldwide in the innovation sector. There is indeed a genuine and fine complementarity between them that constitutes a fertile environment for the pursuit of innovative technology. It is also worth noting that in Switzerland there are approximately 20 times more engineering firms than higher education institutions — which are there, let us remember, to teach and train the future employees of those firms.
All the points listed above sometimes have something trivial about them, so obvious do they seem. But it felt necessary to restate them — because in most cases, one must know where one wants to take a project before committing to it.
Since not every innovation necessarily requires the competencies of a "shoot for the moon" approach, failing to choose the right partner for innovation means risking falling above or below the objectives one sets out to achieve.
