Can Cost-Based Innovation Help Solve Our Debt Crisis?

Each of us are painfully aware of the new economic reality in which we find ourselves: national, state, and local government debt is skyrocketing. Simply put, it costs a lot more to provide and maintain government services than is taken in through taxes and other sources of revenue and thus we are forced to borrow to cover the difference. Every commentator on this subject offers essentially only three near-term solutions to the problem: raise taxes (there’s also a good argument for lowering taxes), cut services and programs, and reduce the civil service payroll.  And while all of these have historically played an important role in some form of debt remediation, I’m struck by the absence of the role of innovation in this national discourse. I’m not talking about entrepreneurial innovation which of course is a considerable generator of income and taxes; I’m talking specifically about cost-based innovation.

Cost-based innovation is all about applying ideas to reducing the cost of a product or service while still providing a similar or acceptable outcome. For example, during the great recession businesses didn’t stop having regional and national meetings (although they had less), they did them differently. Instead of flying all participants to a location and paying for the transportation, lodging, and food costs, they had participants attend the meetings virtually (more than ever, cost-based innovation often relies heavily on technology innovation). The outcome resulted not just in considerably lower meeting costs, but staff enjoyed the convenience of attending from their office, and businesses could claim an attendant reduction to their carbon footprint.

States are struggling with the costs of critical services such as healthcare, education, fire services, welfare programs, and infrastructure upkeep. With a public increasingly opposed to tax increases (I often remind my friends that when America was booming in the 1950’s, the highest tax rate was over 90%), governments have been reduced to eliminating services, programs and cutting payrolls (might there be higher unanticipated costs in the long run as a result?). Okay, so it may be prudent to cancel some nonessential programs. In many cases that’s the right thing to do even when the economy is good! However, instead of such radical measures, where possible, could we ask some probing questions: can the service be provided differently? How can we approach the problem from an entirely different perspective? Cost-based innovation is used in business all the time where it is often applied as a matter of survival. Shouldn’t the same principles apply to government?

Let’s assume most of our politicians are bright and well-intentioned individuals and let’s assume that they largely hire competent and energetic teams. Even these great leaders and teams may not have all the solutions. For this I propose that they ask the electorate for ideas. This is called open innovation. Granted, many governments are experimenting with this approach, but it remains as yet a largely untapped strategy. To solve the BP oil spill, people from all over the country have been submitting thousands of creative ideas. We are increasingly seeing business after business tap into their customers for ideas on improving and creating new products and services. This combination of cost, open, and technology innovation offers great potential to help solve our debt crisis. And don’t stop there; let’s use this approach to solve lots of problems. For every problem that our country or state has, I’m willing to bet people have good ideas to address them.

The problems we face and those we anticipate in the future will not be solved by business-as-usual. Regardless of political persuasion, all of us and our elected officials are going to have to do things differently. And doing things differently is what innovation is all about.


This entry was posted in Cost, Innovation, Society. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Can Cost-Based Innovation Help Solve Our Debt Crisis?

  1. Saker Ghani says:

    Another excellent piece, Jonathan. Sites like,, and (using IdeaJam, no less) seem to be sparking a trend to not only create more transparency for the electorate, but to also engage them in an open innovation model. What is perhaps missing, and you’ve highlighted this in your piece, is to develop a carefully thought unified strategy on how best to do this.

    I remember from my Apple days something Steve Jobs would always reiterate during the .com bust days — that tough economic times should not see the scaling back of innovation, but should rather drive more of it. From a strategic and competitive point of view, this makes a great deal of sense since most firms cut costs during tough times, and those that don’t, and instead increase the innovation investment, will come out that much stronger when the economic recovery eventually occurs.

    Great piece, again!

  2. Marisa Walls says:

    Yes! Cost-based innovation will certainly help solve our debt crisis and all points talked about in this article are well intentioned.

    Yet, I strongly feel that any innovation, cost, open, or technical, will require Well Thought Out – Innovation Implementation – regardless of the creativity, ideas, suggestion, money, and or strategy!

  3. I 100% agree however alot of innovation these days involves losing staff and moving the digital way, we need a fine balance.

  4. Jonathan Reichental says:

    Thanks to all of your comments. Please keep them coming.

  5. Robert Victor says:

    This is exactly the same idea I have on getting rid of the federal deficit, great minds think alike ;). However, I highly doubt it could reduce spending enough to balance the budget AND provide a substantial surplus (to pay off the debt in a reasonable time frame). That is where my “entrepreneurial innovation” comes in. I have a well developed idea on how to go from balanced budget to debt free. I think it could do it in up to 25 years for the federal government(10 to 30 is better since its difficult to pinpoint an exact amount of revenue potential).

    I feel that efficiency and effectiveness should guide government just like it does businesses. The difference is that government need not and should not focus on “profit” nor “profit maximization”. Its a matter of maximizing efficiency within a public scope (keeping within certain quality standards not producing the highest unit profit). In short, getting the most bang out of the taxpayers buck for the correct goals). Obviously efficiency needs to come with effectiveness. However, the government also needs to pay off its debt (not just keep revenue = expenses) so it in a sense, needs to make a profit (until the debt is paid off).

    Actually my idea could also double as a social security fix (not a short term fix but a permanent fix). This is not a one or the other choice. It can be either or both (but who would choose one and not the other if it can fix both?).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s