Beyond incubation: the competence centre
Is this the answer to investor worries about incubator failure?
Perhaps nanotech startups need to be nurtured in a more ‘pluralistic’ environment. The Irish solution just being launched involves bringing together multiple universities, multi-nationals and local startups.
The new competence centre in Ireland is called:
The question box
We talk about ‘incubating startups’ and innovation in the same breath.
Does the term ‘incubator’ fail as a helpful point of comparison in this case?
This centre is aimed at commercialisation of existing innovations.
The report contrasts the later commercialisation stage with the earlier incubation stage.
So should we be looking more closely when we find startups gathered together in incubators and ask ourselves which stage they are at?
Will this give us a better insight into the longer-term viability of the incubator in question?
An if it does turn out to be viable, is it because it is in reality (in every sense but its name) a competence centre?
We also need to avoid ‘going to the other extreme’ (in terms of dismissing the innovation contingent of work done in a competence centre) in our assessment of what we are looking at here: as much as it is focussed upon commercialisation rather than ‘blue sky research’, the very nature of the science and technology involved in this field dictates that there can be no doubt that this competencecentre will be as deeply involved in (and responsible for) just as much innovation as its pre-commercialisation counterparts.
Commercialisation of what has not yet been commercialised is still undeniably innovation.
Consequently we may no longer be talking about ‘incubators’ here, but we certainly still seem to be talking about incubating innovation, so perhaps comparisons may still be informative.
The question box
We talk about ‘incubating startups’ and innovation in the same breath.
Does the term ‘incubator’ fail as a helpful point of comparison in this case?
This centre is aimed at commercialisation of existing innovations.
The report contrasts the later commercialisation stage with the earlier incubation stage.
So should we be looking more closely when we find startups gathered together in incubators and ask ourselves which stage they are at?
Will this give us a better insight into the longer-term viability of the incubator in question?
An if it does turn out to be viable, is it because it is in reality (in every sense but its name) a competence centre?
We also need to avoid ‘going to the other extreme’ (in terms of dismissing the innovation contingent of work done in a competence centre) in our assessment of what we are looking at here: as much as it is focussed upon commercialisation rather than ‘blue sky research’, the very nature of the science and technology involved in this field dictates that there can be no doubt that this competencecentre will be as deeply involved in (and responsible for) just as much innovation as its pre-commercialisation counterparts.
Commercialisation of what has not yet been commercialised is still undeniably innovation.
Consequently we may no longer be talking about ‘incubators’ here, but we certainly still seem to be talking about incubating innovation, so perhaps comparisons may still be informative.
The Competence Centre for Applied Nanotechnology (CCAN)
The organisation which produced the report on the competence centre initiative is called:
Forfás (the national policy advisory board for enterprise, trade, science, technology and innovation in the Republic of Ireland)
The report is called:
Ireland’s Nanotechnology Commercialisation Framework 2010 -2014 (it’s in a PDF on this page on the Forfás website, it’s 149 pages long and full of interesting detail).
The universities involved are:
- Trinity College Dublin, Centre for Research on Adaptive Nanostructures and Nanodevices (CRANN)
- University College Cork, Tyndall National Institute
The Multinationals:
The startups:
The technology domains:
- Advanced materials
- ‘More than Moore’ (focusing on system integration instead of transistor density: ‘Moore’s Law‘ postulated by Gordon Moore of Intel in 1965, projects a doubling of transistors every two years)
- NanoBiotech
The application domains:
- Next-generation electronics
- Medical devices and diagnostics
- Environmental applications
- Industrial process improvements
“Perhaps nanotech startups need to be nurtured in a more ‘pluralistic’ environment.”
Greg, you are right in saying that! Since these technologies cann’t be commercialized in early stages, they need support to foster, but longer incubation periods can make them lethargic; not creating any commercial value for years. However, the idea of putting multiple startups in same incubator sounds good as it may promote competition to generate quick results that can be commercialized.
It would be even more productive if we have cross disciplinary researchers in same incubator.
Here is a research report that backs up my point of view:
http://www.ribm.mmu.ac.uk/wps/papers/03-02.pdf
Good point AflatoonS. Too much of babysitting won’t do any good here.
Competition is one of the added values of incubators. As is cooperation between startups and companies based in such incubator.
After reading the article and viewing the video, I was wondering whether there is some bigger scheme in Ireland, related to nanotech development.
One of the related articles gives an answer:
http://www.businessandleadership.com/news/article/25377/leadership/ireland-as-a-nanotechnology-centre-report
“Following its release the Government is to set up a nanotechnology coordinating group to manage and oversee the policy recommended in the report, entitled Ireland’s Nanotechnology Commercialisation Framework 2010-2014.”
This is really important, the Irish are paying lots of attention to this idea and set themselves goals for incoming years. Green island is playing bigger role in nanotech world with every passing year.
Government’s role is important but I thought few private funding agencies would be interested in investing in such start ups that take too long to commercialize. But I am quite surprized to see a long list of 117 Venture Capital firms (VC’s), Incubators, Angels, Wealth Management, and Consulting, Recruitment and Placement companies that work with and fund nanoscale science start ups, projects, and ventures:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/vc-firms.htm
It seems stakes are high and hopes are high too from nanotech startups..
Are these nanotech start ups really going to yeild very high returns once commercialized?
It is very important, especially in a country like Ireland. Had a quick scan thru the list from the article you have linked, didn’t notice any Irish ones there. That’s why government has to take control of it there.
May be Irish investors don’t have a long term vision! Or there are few investors who can wait for so long for ROI.
I think they do have a long term vision, hence their plans for years 2010-2014. But from what I have seen online, VC companies don’t focus on nanotech as such, looking for opportunities in other sectors as well.
It is fact that nanotech commercilization is still a dream. As the article I found at http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1328.php says,
” The commercial realization of most of these promises lies in the (some say near, some say distant) future; things like quantum computing, molecular electronics, or lab-on-a chip medicine. In its current state, nanotechnology to a large degree takes place in labs and there is only a trickle of products coming to the market. ”
So it needs a lot of capital and dare to invest in a dream that would take years to come to reality!