The Evolution of Science-Based Business: Innovating How We Innovate

Gary P. Pisano

Article | Industrial and Corporate Change

The Evolution of Science-Based Business: Innovating How We Innovate

Abstract

Science has long been connected to innovation and to business. As early as the late 19th century, chemical companies, realizing the commercial potential of science, created the first industrial research laboratories. During much of the 20th century, large-scale business enterprises like DuPont, GE, Westinghouse, IBM, Kodak, Xerox (PARC), and AT&T (Bell Laboratories) created in-house labs capable of first-rate basic scientific research. In recent decades, however, the connection between science and business has begun to change in important ways. While the corporate lab declined, new "science-based businesses" in sectors like biotech, nanotech, and energy emerged. Universities also became active players in the commercialization of science. In short, science has become a business. This essay examines the institutional and organizational challenges created by this convergence of science and business through a Chandlerian lens. It highlights three fundamental challenges of science-based businesses: 1) managing and rewarding long-term risk, 2) integrating across technical disciplines, and 3) learning. Whereas these challenges were once managed inside the boundaries of corporate R&D labs—under the auspices of Chandler's visible hand—today the invisible hand of markets increasingly governs them. An assessment of this form of governance against the requirements of science-based businesses suggests a gap and a need for organizational innovation.

Keywords: Entrepreneurship; Governance; Innovation and Management; Risk Management; Research and Development; Science-Based Business; Commercialization;

Format: Print

18 pages

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Pisano, Gary P. "The Evolution of Science-Based Business: Innovating How We Innovate." Special Issue on Management Innovation—Essays in the Spirit of Alfred D. Chandler. Industrial and Corporate Change 19, no. 2 (April 2010): 465–482.

Creative Construction tackles the myth that larger enterprises are inherently incapable of transformative innovation and are doomed to be disrupted by nimble start-ups. If larger enterprises seem incapable of transformative innovation, it is due to how we design and manage them, rather than anything inherent in their scale. In fact, Creative Construction argues, if used properly, scale can be an asset, rather than a liability, when it comes to innovation. However, to leverage the advantages of scale for innovation, companies need the right combination of strategy, systems, and culture. Based on more than three decades of the Pisano's research, teaching, and experience, Creative Construction offers a set of principles that will lead readers to rethink many long-held beliefs about innovation.

Innovative cultures are generally depicted as pretty fun. They’re characterized by a tolerance for failure and a willingness to experiment. They’re seen as being psychologically safe, highly collaborative, and nonhierarchical. And research suggests that these behaviors translate into better innovative performance. But despite the fact that innovative cultures are desirable, and that most leaders claim to understand what they entail, they are hard to create and sustain. That’s because the easy-to-like behaviors that get so much attention are only one side of the coin. They must be counterbalanced by some tougher and frankly less fun behaviors: an intolerance for incompetence, rigorous discipline, brutal candor, a high level of individual accountability, and strong leadership. Unless the tensions created by this paradox are carefully managed, attempts to create an innovative culture will fail.

Faculty & Research

The Evolution of Science-Based Business: Innovating How We Innovate

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author