Research between man and business

Vega, the science and technology park, provides potential national and international investors in Venice with the necessary support, fostering collaboration between economic operators and encouraging innovative firms to set up their main offices in the historic center of Venice and in the nearby mainland.

Is research addressed to people or businesses?
I believe that the two spheres can hardly be separated, since in any case research always aims at improving man’s quality of life, even by way of introducing technical or industrial innovations which are then to be found in commodities, products and services that are intended for the final market. Often enough, the products yielding the best results in business terms are precisely the ones offering their users better performances.

Does the Italy of the thousand inventors have a future in this new hyper technological era?
I feel that inventors today should stand out for their ability to work in a multidisciplinary context; the best results often come from insights which create liasons and they generate a connective tissue and a map of knowledge that spring up from creative recombination and contamination.

When can we actually speak of innovation?
Innovation can be in the form of a new product, of improvements made to an existing commodity, or of the creation of a different trade image – which is often perceived by the end user as having a higher value.

Doing business means crossing limits, if the innovative aspect is removed will there be only management left?
Entrepreneurs must be able to make the best use of widely available resources. However, it is no longer a matter of managing funds and performing jobs; knowledge must play a primary role and cultural integration between all corporate members should be pursued as a primary goal. The most urgent issue demanding a solution is that of capitalising corporate culture and knowledge.

Is it absolutely necessary to centralise research, will lone talents be lost forever?
It is important to interact, but one of the good things about man is precisely his individual ability to generate a spark of creativity that will make the process go on, creating future scenarios, pushing the frontier farther back of that which can be known.

It’s been rumoured that someone is sitting in his garage etching the company’s name on bullets, what are your plans to help single companies avoid this risk?
Innovation goes hand in hand with the young, who are by far the most curious and creative persons, always ready to accept changes.
Companies are experiencing a period of deep changes in their life cycles; you will rapidly grow old if you cannot immediately adjust to the continuous changes taking place out there. Companies must invest in innovation and research, otherwise they risk becoming fixed in a state of inertia that will lead to a stability that does not produce results.

Is it possible to innovate for a company without being emotionally involved?
Absolutely not, the researcher’s emotional involvement plays a fundamental role in achieving the final result. It is fundamental to believe in what you are doing, so that what you’re trying to achieve can become meaningful; research is one of the human mind’s most refined activities and it cannot be reduced to a sterile analysis or a recipe where it suffices to follow the instructions.

The productive north-eastern part of Italy, the Italian miracle, was also the result of its ability to innovate, does it risk slowing down in the near future?
Rather than its ability to innovate, I believe that the North-Eastern part of Italy is the fruit of the people’s spirit of sacrifice and willingness to work; perhaps this is what is lacking, in a context where it is becoming more and more difficult to make a name for oneself and to be successful.

What is the acceptable percentage of failures in research?
When dealing with particularly innovative issues, there is a high risk of failure, but those who are not ready to run this risk will never have the chance to create new scenarios.

How clear cut are the limits of what can lawfully be called “researched”?
The issue of lawfulness is extremely subjective. Research should definitely not be censored, taking for granted that it is necessary to put oneself in the hands of the researchers and of their civil consciousness. Much of what we take for granted nowadays is the result of long years of research activity, which cannot and should not be viewed as completed, but rather as part of an overall ongoing process which has the potential to push the frontier of current knowledge farther back.