contact us

Use the form on the right to contact John.


123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789


You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.


The Innovation "Frame"

Thais Alencar

Huffington Post

Professional circumstances have given me a monster backstage pass to

see how innovation really works in many countries around the world,

as well as in our own. I want to bring this knowledge home to fuel a

national conversation on these important issues. And so with these

words I am pleased to launch "Innovation Nation" as my offering to

the blogosphere. I begin my first HuffPost with some puzzlement. It is January 18, 2008, the presidential campaign has been in full swing for longer than

most of us would like to admit, and the "innovation" issue is still

conspicuously MIA from discourse and debate.

We've had the Iraq "frame," and now the recession and change

"frames." But what about the Innovation "frame?" Are we just not

getting the importance of innovation? Vannevar Bush, presidential

science advisor, said it best in 1947, "A nation that loses its science and

technology will lose control of its destiny." More recently the National

Academy of Science referred to the problem as a "gathering storm."

And in my own recent book, Innovation Nation, I state that America is

losing its innovation edge with profound implications for our security

and prosperity as a nation.

Is anybody listening out there in leader-land?

History will show America's current innovation melt-down to have

been an egregious self-inflicted wound. I would need ten times this

space just to recite a list of dismal facts about how poorly our national

innovation system is performing. Some headlines: our young scientists

are abandoning their careers with increasing frequency, talent is

increasingly not coming to our storied shores, our public education

and R & D are showing significant erosion, we're strapped for cash,

other countries are leading us in a growing number of scientific fields, and nobody seems to care.

The innovation frame in national politics has been conspicuous by its

absence. Instead, we have heard increasingly frequent (and tedious)

calls for change. But change is driven by innovation, which is the

wellspring of progress. Change has to be about something or it is just

novelty. In other words, if change is the answer we seek, what is the

question? And, it is a multitude of changes - driven by innovation

capability and harnessed to a compelling national idea - that leads to

transformation. Otherwise, change is just...change.

Wise corporate leaders have always known that change is galvanized

in the presence of a set of big ideas that set the vector and allow

countless instances of innovation to drive it. We need to have a sense

of where we are going if we are to arrive at a meaningful destination.

I have three hypotheses about why we haven't heard more about


1) It's hard to define. True enough - most people still have a hard

enough time distinguishing between creativity and innovation, let

alone defining the role of entrepreneurship in innovation. Many policy

makers will make the elementary mistake of equating innovation with

science and high tech, when it fact it has to do with a broader array of

business model and process innovation that can be driven by design

and the arts.

2) It's hard to talk about. If we can't define it, how can we hope to have

a meaningful conversation about it?

3) We don't have the right national narrative for innovation. This gets

to the heart of the matter. Talking about innovation feels a little like

talking about preventive medicine: we know it's important, but it

never seems to reach the highest priority level. On the other hand,

throw in a little chest pain and it's time to call 911. That's why I have

called our present situation a Silent Sputnik. Unlike the original

Sputnik in 1957 that galvanized our country into action with its first

(and sadly last) national innovation drive, our present situation lacks

urgency and therefore it's no surprise that we're not taking needed


Which brings us to the presidential election. Whether the agenda is

innovation or change - it must start at the top. There is no company

that has succeeded at a large-scale change or innovation effort without

involvement and advocacy from the CEO. Well, we are voting for the

equivalent of a CEO of this country in November and I think we

deserve to hear from the candidates as to how they view innovation in

much greater detail. We need answers from them to such questions as:

What they plan to do about our innovation "problem" in all its

many-headed glory: from science policy to education, strategic

investment and the formation of new kinds of global alliances.

How they see the process of developing a meaningful national

strategy for innovation. How they plan to allocate stewardship and responsibility for

executing that strategy. What kind of metrics they plan to use and how they will define success.

What they plan to invest in. Perhaps most importantly, what is their point of view. How do

they connect the dots into a diagnosis of our innovation

"problem" is and how do they frame our innovation challenge in

light of a larger national narrative? We urgently need a robust national conversation on these issues. As a nation, we deserve it. And if I have anything to do about it, we will get one.

In posts to come, I'm going to cover such topics as how innovation

"works" in other countries such as Finland and China that are racing

for a new innovation high ground. I'm going to document what's going

on in this country - both the hopeful signs as well as the dismal facts.

And in doing so, I hope to enlist you in helping to build Innovation

Nation right here in the United States of America.