The Marchant 3i theory of Innovation

As we face the seismic shifts arising from climate change, demographic forces and the digital revolution the key to future well being will be innovation. This is true for individuals, organisations, businesses and indeed whole countries. There are lots of theories about innovation and what is needed to create an innovative environment but I thought I would add my own fairly simple theory which I have and continue to use to guide my approach to new ideas. 

I believe that any new idea or innovation has to go through 3i stages.

STAGE 1. INVENTION

Everything that is new starts with a spark that comes from a moment of inspiration or as a result of years of hard work. I call this the invention stage and it can occur as part of a plan, such as in a university or a man in a shed,  or it can be the result of serendipity or pure chance. However, some people are naturally good at coming up with new ideas. For example, in the case of one colleague I had to restrict them to 'an idea of the week' as they seemed to have a new idea every time I saw them. Inventors need to be nurtured and encouraged but this spark is not enough for true innovation.

STAGE 2. IMPROVEMENT 

Most inventions do not emerge fully formed but need to be worked on, tweaked and improved. I fall into this category. I can't help but take an idea and try and connect it with other ideas, look for other applications where it could be used or add features or functions to improve its value. I suspect that many leaders and managers fit this mould and indeed someone senior to the inventor may see connections, applications and features that the original inventor isn't aware of. But an improved invention is still just an idea.

STAGE 3 IMPLEMENTATION

It is obvious but surprisingly often overlooked that a good idea actually needs to deployed and rolled out and that requires implementation skills. Tablet computers would have been a concept in science fiction if Apple and the like hadn't manufactured, distributed and sold actual products. Implementation requires more tenacity and endurance than the first two steps and is all too often forgotten.

So three simple steps which I can remember because they all begin with the same letter. My experience is that most people are naturally stronger in one of the three area,  as I said I'm an improver, and the key to creating an innovative environment is to connect different people with the three strengths. This can apply in all walks of life not just business; there can be innovative schools, churches and the like but I believe that they all need these three stages to actual ally lead to an implemented, improved invention. 

Hinkley Point. 10 things I hate about you

The potential new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point seems to be edging closer to starting construction. I feel that I should record my views now so they can be examined by historians when the plant starts producing electricity. I have been inspired by a film title from 1999.

So what are my ten things.

1. PRICE

The headlines keep saying that will be paying £92.50 per MWh for the power from Hinkley but that is in 2012 prices and shows the PR skills of the nuclear industry. It was out of date when it was published and now after nearly four years it must be around £100MWh. That's more than double the current wholesale power price, nearly a third above the cost onshore wind (which the government hates) and is more than any other country seems to be paying for nuclear power. What's not to hate about this.

2. DELIVERY DATE

I remember being told by the CEO of EDF in the UK that I would be able to cook my Christmas dinner in 2017 with power from a new nuclear station. I'm not that keen on Brussels sprouts but certainly not ones that have been waiting to be cooked for many many years. The latest date I've heard is 2025 for first power but I suspect this is just a guess. Put it another way. It's not going to make a difference to the UKs current security of supply crunch.

3. DURATION

When the plant does eventually come on line we will then be forced to pay the inflated price for a total of 35 years which by my reckoning could be over £120Mwh at the start and by 2060 it will be about £200Mwh. We are being forced to take a 45 year bet on energy prices 

4. TECHNOLOGY 

My issue isn't with nuclear power itself, it is that we have chosen to build a technology that is based on 20th century ideas and which isn't exactly problem free. The first two stations of this variety being built in Finland and France are so late and over budget they make public sector projects look well run!

5. SIZE

The new units at Hinkley Point will be 1600MW each which to put into context is four times the size of one of the large coal units or a modern single Gas fired plant. It's 33% bigger than anything else on our electricity system which will cause the network operator some issues and therefore cost in making available sufficient back up reserve. It is interesting to note that the only real time that the transmission network struggled to maintain supply was when the current biggest power station failed.

6. OWNERSHIP

It is a point of note that after leading the world in electricity privatisation we are dependent on the largely state owned EDF and a wholly state owned Chinese company to build this station.

7. WASTE

When I challenged the Government's pursuit of new nuclear build 7 or 8 years ago, in response to one of my questions, I was assured that before we decided on any new plant we would have made the key decisions on handling our existing stockpile of radioactive material. I know proponents say that new nuclear doesn't generate that much waste but surely we shouldn't dig the hole a little deeper before we know what we are doing with the hole. And that metaphor illustrates the problem. We don't know where the hole is going to be and show no signs of making that decision.

8. TRANSPARENCY 

The deals being done to get this plant built will be extremely complex and impenetrable to all but the most expert of energy anoraks. For example, I understand that the contract to deal with the power price and output ( a so called CFD) is over 400 pages long and has never been subject to independent scrutiny and who knows what the terms of the 'sweetheart' financing deal that was done to get the Chinese on board. I do wonder what devil lies in the detail.

9. DECOMMISSIONING 

Whilst it is many years in the future and therefore conveniently ignored currently, at some point the mass of irradiated steel and concrete will need to be made safe. Unlike most other energy production facilities this is not a quick or low risk process and I am concerned that we aren't adequately pricing this future risk (or indeed the risk of an incident during the stations life).

10.  NEED

And finally, do we actually need it? In one sense you can argue that we do to reduce our carbon emissions but there is another perspective. The relentless drive for a new nuclear power station started back in 2006 when experts felt that peak electricity demand in 2015 would be around 65GW (that's a total of 40 Hinkley units for example). A combination of energy efficiency and economic drivers means that actual peak demand this year will only be 55GW (about six Hinkleys less) so even if we needed it then do we need it now?

I may not have convinced you on all ten points but the charge sheet is long and surely a guilty verdict on a few should be enough to make us think again. 

I firmly believe that we should not be building this enormous, expensive piece of old but curiously unproven technology but should pursue the emerging new generation of modular nuclear power stations that will, I believe be deployable in the new few years or so and will be quicker and cheaper to build at a scale that is appropriate to our electricity system. So it's not nuclear power that I hate; its this nuclear power.