Innovation and the Prosperity of Nations

(page 3 of 5)

“In South Kensington [home of the RCA, Imperial and the associated Tanaka] we have a nexus of design, business and engineering” he noted—while recognising that South Kensington is not the sole UK nexus. More generally, he argued that universities should focus on teaching and research rather than “compete [by doing consulting work] with the employers of our own graduates, and our own graduates who are setting up businesses.” Crucially, he asked where universities, especially in art and design, fit in the innovation cycle when R&D is now out in the open. Noting the innovation phases of discovery, create/develop, and deliver, he observed the skills of art schools are best suited to the first phase.

Geoff Kirk’s key argument, complementing Myerson’s, was that universities are not sub-contract houses. Rather, they “need to retain independence of thought” and feel they can challenge a sponsoring company.

The pre-lunch keynote was delivered by the Rt. Hon Alistair Darling MP, UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who recently asked the Design Council to produce a report on how well UK industry is making use of design and creativity. Darling began by comparing current developments to the industrial revolution, and arguing that Britain has got to compete on quality and excellence, and design and creativity. “We must seek competitive advantage by exploiting capabilities that our competitors cannot imitate” he said. “The UK has distinctive skills in innovation and creativity that we can draw on to produce high value goods and services.” Reflecting on the ur-example of successful consumer products—the iPod—he noted that “it was the consumer-friendly and up-to-date design that brought a revolution in the market.” “Without great design, a great idea will wither on shop shelves instead of flying off them,” he argued. Considering the role of government, he reflected on the importance of network of Centres of Creativity, with the London-based National Centre for Design and Innovation at its core, and also noted that Government could help promote design and creativity through its own procurement.

Design Council Chief Executive David Kester started by defining design as “what links creativity and innovation,” and “creativity deployed to a specific end.” He cited Design Council research which showed that design-driven companies out-performed the market, but noted that business often lacks the skills to use design effectively. He reflected on the trend for emerging economies—including China, India and New Zealand—to embrace design and creativity, and cited research by John Heskett, Professor of Design at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, on the creative capabilities of China, commissioned as part of the Cox Review.

Darling and Kester’s speeches were responded to by a panel including Sir Terence Conran; David Godber, Director of Nissan Design Europe; and IDEO co-founder Bill Moggridge. Conran reflected on the key influence of the 1951 Festival of Britain, in which he had a hand. “No one knew what design could do” he observed. “Design cheered people up.” Coming back to the present he asked “Where can you go to be convinced that we care deeply about design?”, suggesting the London-based Design Museum, which he was key to creating, with its ambitious plans under new director Deyan Sudjic. He also cited his first hand experience of the UK government’s enthusiasm for design, based on the tour of the Royal College of Art student show he and Rector Christopher Frayling had given the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “This is the future for British industry,” was the comment of the likely next UK Prime Minister. Conran also reflected on the challenges for design, observing that there are no large-scale furniture factories in UK.

David Godber noted the resilience of UK in general, but reported that one of the key government initiatives, tax credits for design, were still mostly unclaimed by qualifying design companies, implying greater challenges than simple policy development.