Obama and Innovation: First Moves

As President-elect Obama continues with the process of preparing to assume the office in January, the Washington Post reports that he has named a team to create an Innovation Agenda for the U.S.  On the surface this is a very encouraging sign.  Urgent attention is needed in this area.  However, we will have to wait and see if anything substantive is delivered by the team.

Why the skepticism?  The background of the team leaders (Blair Levin, Sonal Shah and Julius Genachowski) suggests that we are unlikely to see strongly innovative thinking in setting the Innovation Agenda.  I suspect that we will see some interesting approaches to revamping how government interfaces with the people.  But in the area where we need it most, building the innovation capacity of America as a participant in the Global arena, we are most likely going to treated to a variety of the same old tired recipes: a bit of cheer leading, a smattering of funding haphazardly sprinkled about, and lot of hoping that if you simply talk about being innovative we will somehow be more innovative.

I sincerely hope I am unnecessarily cynical about this issue.  Innovation is vital not only to America’s future but also to the entire global community.  We, as members of the global community, have many issues that need to be addressed, and as the world has evolved it has become clear that some new paradigms are needed to resolve these issues.  Will the new Innovation Agenda make a contribution in this direction?  What do you think?

Comments

[Jim Belfiore]

There's been a tremendous effort put forth by Obama's messaging team to show symbols of change and strength as the transition of power proceeds.

Unfortunately, symbolism often takes priority over substance. Establishing titular government roles around innovation certainly draw attention, but a closer examination of the individuals advising Obama raise questions.

Perhaps of greater concern, are the four innovation sub-teams Obama has proposed:

1) Innovation and Government
2) Innovation and National Priorities
3) Innovation and Science
4) Innovation and Civil Society

We're already seeing some of the agenda behind one or more of these sub-teams in the area of energy and innovation. What's disturbing to me is not that there is a focus on alternative-fuels ($150 billion is a number already being tossed around), but that there is specific focus on only certain solutions (and opposition to others) before the problems have even been strategically considered, stated, and analyzed for both benefits and risks.

Time will tell if this team will have the foresight and open-mindedness to consider all of the aspects, benefits, and responsibilities of their Innovation Agenda. I would pose one question to the newly formed team.

"Before we fix the auto industry with an electric car, doesn't it make sense to analyze what's wrong with the commute?"