The Evolution Of Innovation And The Rule Of Punctuated Equilibrium
A common mantra of the life sciences industry can be captured in a one word—innovate.
To survive in today’s hostile world, a company must out-think and out-innovate the competition. And out of that wet, murky reality crawled the new pharma life form called the accelerator. Born, generally with a spine of conviction, this new and evolved creature emerges with its “fight or flight” response transferred to the techno-limbic desire of “innovate or die.” However, this mission of innovation seems to overtake the process itself, leaving pharma to drive innovation in almost every corner of corporate headquarters. How far off can a blockchain cafeteria be?
But it seems to me that the broad application of innovation from drug development to marketing might be the problem itself. I’m reminded of Stephen Jay Gould’s concept of punctuated equilibrium as it applies to evolution. Simply put, Gould suggested that gradual change doesn’t happen. A long period of stasis is punctuated by more rapid and defining change that disrupts the equilibrium. And interestingly, these evolutionary novelties may emerge peripherally isolated populations.
Take a closer look and we may see that evolution—or innovation in this case—can be found in isolated pockets that might have unique environments. Yet it’s these “pockets of change” that gave rise to the complete evolutionary dynamic. And it’s my sense that pharma might be best served to embrace innovation as a punctuated initiative at key points in a longer and well-defined process. The application of innovation randomly, in the form a senior management decree, just might be both wasteful and ineffective. And ultimately, the lack of result may doom that entire innovation initiative itself.
Perhaps, innovation is less pure magic of creativity and more a function of timing and carefully “injected” stimuli into a traditional linear process. And the key is: the ubiquitous accelerator models need to find the right spot as well as the right idea to be successful. For example, drug development might be best “evolved” by focused attention around concepts like social media-based patient recruitment and genetically based target compound screening.
Of course, the trick in finding the right points where external stimuli can drive real change.
Today’s accelerators often apply creativity across various domains “hoping” for lightning to strike. But as Gould has suggested, we may wish to apply the lightning more carefully to help shape the process of innovation. Collaboration, the freedom to fail, blue-sky thinking and engaging venues are all part of the path to innovation. But we shouldn’t expect a eureka moment to just emerge from the correct primordial soup. The recipe is more complicated and might be best served by well-timed and well-placed nudges. So, remember, the systematic and incremental improvements to the candle never gave rise to the light bulb!
