Popov or Marconi? How to assess the priority of innovation

Modern man lives in a world of convenient things. For example, right now I am typing this text on a laptop keyboard, next to me there is an electric lamp, a smartphone, a computer mouse on a mat, a fan, a chocolate bar in a convenient package and much more. All of these technical devices (lamp, keyboard, laptop, smartphone, fan...) and materials (mouse pad and even the convenient packaging for the chocolate bar) were invented by someone. 

Article Editor: Mark Beygelzimer, PhD, systems analyst, head of the Trust but Verify project.

The answer to the question “Who invented?” is important not only for the prestige of the author himself. In many cases, inventions are a factor of economic independence of the country the author represents, its innovative potential and status in interstate relations.

Therefore, finding out the priority of this or that innovative solution is an important direction of factchecking research, and it has peculiarities in comparison with other types of factchecking.

These features are connected with the fact that any innovation from the idea to its practical realization passes several stages. And often authors from different countries have priority at different stages. Therefore, as a rule, there is no unambiguous answer to the question: “who invented?”. It all depends on what is meant by the word “invented”. Suggested an idea? Got the first prototype? Created the first successful industrial model?

To understand such questions, we suggest using a globally accepted classification of stages of innovative solutions development. These stages are known as TRL - Technology Readiness Level. According to this classification, for each technical innovation, in general, nine stages of development can be distinguished [ref]:

We have divided the list of TRL stages by a dotted line into two parts for a reason. The transition from TRL 5 to TRL 6 is the most important in the life of every technical innovation. At all stages up to and including TRL 5, the invention is of interest only to its author and a narrow circle of persons associated with it. The stages from TRL 6 onwards have a practical impact on a wide consumer audience. The boundary between TRL 5 and TRL 6 is usually crossed by only a small fraction of all inventions, which is why experts in the field of new technology often refer to this boundary as the “project graveyard”. We will use a more optimistic name: “socially significant frontier”. This name emphasizes the fact that it is TRL 6 that opens a direct path for the impact of this innovation on a large mass of people, up to the entire humanity.

Using the proposed approach to the history of radio creation clearly shows that the priority in the stages up to and including TRL 4 is German scientist Heinrich Hertz (he experimentally confirmed the reality of radio communication in 1887 and tested it in laboratory conditions in 1888). The first prototype (TRL 5) was created by Russian physicist Alexander Popov in April 1896. And eight months later, in December 1896, the first prototype (TRL 6) was created, but only not by Alexander Popov, and Nikola Tesla - a scientist of Serbian origin. Thus, it was Tesla, not Popov, who was able to be the first to cross the socially significant threshold from TRL 5 to TRL 6. And if Tesla had not been distracted by another task, we would probably associate the invention of mass radio communication with him today. But in the end it was Italian engineer and entrepreneur Guglielmo Marconi who was the first to bring the development to the industrial model in 1898 (TRL 8) and its serial operation since 1907 (TRL 9). It is to him that mankind owes the widespread use of radio communication.

What is most important in such an analysis is not even the priority itself, but the reasons why a researcher achieved (or did NOT achieve) that priority. For example, in the example of radio invention discussed above, Popov was unable to cross the socially significant threshold between TRL 5 and TRL 6 in time to compete with Marconi due to lack of support in Russia.

Of course, one cannot draw far-reaching conclusions about the place of different countries and forms of state structure in the general technical progress of civilization. But the application of the proposed approach to different innovations can give strong grounds for such conclusions. Therefore, we will continue our research on a wide variety of innovations, including convenient things that surround us.

Cover image - from Fintel connect.

Dear reader, We invite you to share your opinion about this article and the Trust but Verify project in general through available communication channels.