It is not the strongest of the species that survives,nor the most intelligent, but the one mostresponsive to change.

— Charles Darwin

Human thought and ingenuity affect every sphereof life. We all have good ideas and even more not-so-good ones. Then there are those concepts that havegradually transformed our society over generations orhave provided reliable and robust solutions to every-day problems. A distinctly influential force called“innovation” propelled them.

Innovation is essential, morethan ever, to safeguard anddeliver high-quality technolo-gies, successful businesses, bet-ter products and services, andnew and more environmentallyfriendly processes for ourfuture prosperity. Innovationruns across all economic sec-tors and affects communities ofall sizes. In fact, our ability toraise our living standards signif-icantly depends on maximizinginnovation throughout the vari-ous structures and hierarchieswithin our global economy.

Worldwide, consumerexpectations are increasing formore sophisticated services andadvanced products. Shorterproduct life cycles are forcingthe industry to respond faster through the process ofcontinuous innovation. The focal point now is form-ing an “innovation culture” that encapsulates the bestpractices from conception through development.

The “I” mantraInnovation is primarily driven by Imagination—the

readiness to redefine what could be; Inquiry—curiosi-ty, discovery and learning; and Initiative—the readi-ness to do. These three feed and interact with eachother. There are other “I” words we could use here,but these three form the intersecting core.

Innovation keeps organizations alive through con-tinuous renewal and growth. Without innovativeideas, organizations stagnate. Hirshberg (1998) states,“Innovation requires the capacity to disdain traditionand break with comfortable routines and masteredskills.” This is a very difficult thing for most enterpris-es to do.

Peter Drucker, in Innovation and Entrepreneurship(1985), defines innovation as “the purposeful and sys-tematic search for change and opportunity … theeffort to create purposeful, focused change in an

enterprise’s economic or social potential.” He adds,“Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, themeans by which they exploit change as an opportuni-ty for a different business or service. It is capable ofbeing presented as a discipline, capable of beinglearned, and capable of being practiced with a highcapacity to create wealth.”

Joseph Schumpeter, a theorist of capitalist economicdevelopment in the 20th century, defined in his “TheTheory of Economic Development: An inquiry intoprofits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle”(1911), the following five scenarios as innovation:

1) Developing new products and services;2) Developing new methods of production;3) Identifying new markets;4) Discovering new sources of supply, and5) Developing new organizational forms.Innovation does not rely upon convergent think-

ing. Innovation depends ondivergent thinking, on theability to change and move indirections that are specificallynon-traditional. In Edward DeBono’s words, it depends on“lateral” thinking. In his Later-al Thinking: Creativity Step byStep, (1973) he says, “Lateralthinking is quite distinct fromvertical thinking, which is thetraditional type of thinking. Invertical thinking one movesforward in sequential stepseach of which must be justi-fied…in lateral thinking oneuses information not for itsown sake but for its effect. Inlateral thinking one may haveto be wrong at some stage inorder to achieve a correctsolution; in vertical thinking

(logic or mathematics) this would be impossible. Inlateral thinking one may deliberately seek out irrele-vant information; in vertical thinking one selects outonly what is relevant.”

The equationInnovation = Creativity * Risk-takingTake a minute to reflect on the equation we just

presented. Foster and Kaplan (2001) state, “Theunderlying element in all innovation is creativity. Onlyby understanding creativity can one grapple withwhat is needed for sustained performance.”

Creativity is the ability to develop new ideas.Those ideas may be as mundane as turning eggshellsinto little faces or as sublime as the great pyramids ofEgypt. They may be as practical as the saltshaker or asabsurd as a wrist watch for dogs. Regardless of scopeor usefulness, creativity is synonymous with newideas (Byrd, 1974).

Creativity is measured by originality. And we allexhibit some amount of creativity. But let us not con-fuse the ability to think up something new with intelli-gence. People often assume that originality and

4 0278-6648/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE IEEE POTENTIALS

Innovate or evaporateGuruprasad Madhavan and Diana Anderson

©R

ubbe

rall

Pro

duct

ions

Com

posi

te:M

KC

intelligence are correlated. There is little evidence tosupport this assumption. People with average intelli-gence do exhibit original ideas, and some of thebrightest people seldom have original thoughts.

We know creativity’s value, but it will sit dormantunless we stimulate it. This is where the gift of moti-vation becomes so crucial. Those of us who possesscreativity and motivation to shift gear our ideas to thenext level are the ones who power the engine ofchange and progress.

The second component of innovation is risk-taking.Taking risks is the only way that creative ideas becomereality, where risk is a deliberately willed activity thatcreates and accelerates change. Risk-taking means thata person is willing to push his or her ideas forward atpossible loss to his or her own security, career, reputa-tion or self-esteem. Risk-taking is the ability to drivenew ideas forward in the face of adversity.

However, risk-taking is not an inborn trait. That is,we are not born a high or a low risk taker. In fact,there is an innate resistance to taking risks beyondwhat is acceptable in our immediate environment.

Many of us work with people who are afraid totake risks; as a result they do nothing. Organizationsmiss critical opportunities playing it safe, as well. But,often, those companies afraid to take a risk and fail,end up failing anyhow.

Rarely do we find ourselves with all the data tomake a failsafe decision. And if we do find ourselvesin such a situation, we have mitigated all of the risk outof the equation. But taking risks just to take risks ispointless. There must be a positive payoff. People whotake risks just for the sake of taking risks are addictedto the thrill, not to the appropriateness of the risk giventhe situation and the potential loss(es) and gain(s).

Sources of systematic innovationConsistent change provides opportunities for the

new and the different. Drucker defines systematicinnovation as, “the purposeful and organized searchfor changes and in the systematic analysis of theopportunities such changes might offer for economicor social innovation.” The overwhelming majority ofsuccessful innovations are prosaic and exploit change.Thus, the discipline of innovation is a diagnostic disci-pline. Drucker points out seven sources that mightcontribute toward innovative opportunities. The firstfour are symptoms that lie within the organization orenterprise.

The four (internal) source areas are:1. The unexpected—be it an unexpected success

or failure or an unexpected event;2. The incongruity—between what actually hap-

pens and what was supposed to happen;3. Innovation based on process need —the inade-

quacy in the underlying processes, things that aretaken for granted but can be improved or changed;

4. Changes in industry structure or market structure—that takes everyone by surprise.

The second set of sources for innovative opportu-nity, a set of three, involves changes outside the enter-prise or organization. They include:

5. Demographics—population changes caused by

changes in birth rates, wars, medical improvements, etc.;6. Changes in perception, mood, and meaning—

that can be brought about by the ups and downs ofthe economy, culture fashion and so on, and

7. New knowledge—both scientific and non-scien-tific.

To add to the completeness of the above sevensources, an eighth source could be:

8. The bright idea—this one might actually outrankthe preceding sevensources put together. Thereason is the significantimprovement in the issuingof new patents and forma-tion of start-ups based sole-ly on the newer inventions.But please note, the brightidea is not a critical playerin the process of systematicinnovation.

Three broad categories

With so many types ofinnovation currentlyaround, trying to segmentthe existing types can beawkward. However, wehave grouped innovationsinto three broad cate-gories:

1) Product innovationsrelate to the invention of aproduct, or the improve-ment of product character-istics, so that it is more“sales” worthy. They takeinto account consumptionbehaviors and the segmen-tation of demand. Theycan be part of a concept, atechnology or a presenta-tion. For instance, the Boe-ing 747 was a productinnovation, because itbrought a new concept,i.e. a plane with huge seat-ing capacities in a marketthat focused on small ormedium seating capacityplanes. A new productnecessarily emerges from aformer strategic segmentation, expressed either by asegment creation, the split-up or the fusion of one ormore segments.

2) Process innovations relate to the productionprocess. For example, the Toyota adopted the“Kaizen” system of improving organizational produc-tion during the 1970s. Kaizen is a Japanese term thatliterally means "good change." Pronounced kigh-zen,it refers to an ancient Zen philosophy that prescribesconstant, small, gradual improvement, rather than big,

APRIL/MAY 2005 5

Performance

ExponentialGrowth

Total Impact

TimePoint of Rupture

Time

Performance

Time

Performance

1 2

3

4 5

Fig. 1 The S-Curve can be described by threeparameters: rupture, exponentialgrowth and total impact.

Fig. 2 An S-curve is the result of the compo-sition of smaller S-curves.

Fig. 3 Phases of technology innovation: (1)Rupture, (2) Early development (3)Expansion, (4) Maturation and (5)Saturation

bold, sudden, seismic change. Kaizen was rediscov-ered, ironically, by an American management consul-tant, Edwards Deming, who used it to maximize thequality of manufacturing during World War II. Afterthe war, Deming then introduced the concept to Toy-ota. Kaizen, then, is credited for the blindsiding anddethroning of the American automobile industry dur-ing the 1980s by the Japanese, who trained theirworkers to focus on manageable, incrementalimprovements at a time when U.S. car manufacturerswere thinking “bigger and better.”

Another example is the QB House, a Japanese firmthat offers a two-minute haircut. On top of the door,

three lights, green,orange and red,give customers anindication of thewait. (Red meansmore than five min-utes, orangebetween one and

five minutes, green for less than one minute.) In thiscase, innovation comes from a radical change in theprocess. Cutting hair is usually a long process, with anestablished relationship—a socialization process—between the customer and the hairdresser. This stan-dardization targets people who want fast, anonymousand efficient service.

3) Organizational innovations give firms a corpo-rate structure adjusted to current market needs andcapacities. Examples of organizational innovations arenumerous. For instance in the 1990s, “made to order,”or multi-functional “matrix groups,” were implement-ed to improve productivity and efficiency.

An example of organizational innovation is provid-ed by the State in Singapore’s actions during the lastfew decades. One could argue that with ongoingglobalization the government’s control over cross-bor-der flows of products and services is weakened.

But Singapore by implementing a strategy, knownas “complementary assets,” to attract foreign corporateinvestment has shown that national governments playa crucial role in influencing healthy business activities.Singapore understood perfectly the “power shift”between mobile and less mobile factors in economicgrowth, and invested in the creation of a network of

“government-linkedcompanies.” Thegovernment effec-tively filled businessareas such astourism, entrepre-

neurship, and small business development wheremulti-national corporations were not interested ininvesting. Through this action, Singapore increased itsgeographical value.

For each of the three types of innovations we havejust defined, there are additionally two degrees ofinnovation: radical (entirely new product or servicecategory and production delivery system) or incre-mental (innovation is due to the adaptation or refine-ment and enhancement of existing products andservices).

Forms Innovations may assume specific forms as well. We

illustrate these forms using examples from the domainof electricity in the 19th century. Innovations mayhave the form of an ontology of concepts that enableanalysis. (Ontology is the branch of philosophy thatdeals with the nature of being.) For example, state-ments about electricity require an ontology composedof such concepts as voltage, current, resistance, capaci-tance and inductance. Each of these concepts is based(that is, grounded) on observable measurements (per-formance metrics). The emergence of this ontology,and the accompanying metrics, made it possible to rea-son and communicate about electric circuits.

Innovations may also take the form of theories thatpredict and explain phenomena. For example, Fara-day discovered a relation between magnetism andelectric charge. That made it possible to design aplethora of electrical devices. However, the theorycould only be stated formally once the ontology andits measures were established.

Innovation may take the form of methods of analy-sis. For example, analyses of electrical circuits weremade possible by Kirchoff's laws for current and volt-age. Analysis of communication systems was madepossible by the introduction of Fourier domain analy-sis by Nyquist, Shannon and others.

Innovations may also be the design for a device.Faraday's law made it possible to design devices thatconverted between kinetic energy and electric poten-tial (motors and generators). Over the years, manynew forms of electric motors and electric generatorshave been invented, refined and exploited. Eachmotor can be compared to others based on a commonset of measurable properties such as efficiency ortorque.

Innovations may be the systems’ architectures com-posed of multiple independent devices. Thomas Edis-on's creation of an electrical power distribution systemwas a revolutionary innovation that could be mea-sured in terms of number of electrical devices con-structed or total electric power generated.

More frequently, however, innovations often are“improvements” to existing devices or architectures.George Westinghouse surplanted Thomas Edison bytransmitting power using alternating current. Theimprovement in transmission efficiency led to impor-tant economic advantages.

Achieving success in the processAll human endeavors rely upon competency,

resources, opportunity, will and support; planning forsuccess must accommodate these five factors.

Competency: Direction and vision are essential tosustained positive energy. High expertise: in the tech-nology, identifying the market and addressing theneed is essential to achievement.

Resources: Resources are often restricted and notsimply the financial sort. For example, issues mightcircle around facilities, raw materials or communica-tions.

Opportunity: Opportunity includes the ability tocontribute to the organization’s future as well as its

6 IEEE POTENTIALS

Nearly every person who develops an ideaworks up to the point where it looks impossible,and then he gets discouraged. That's not theplace to become discouraged.

—Thomas Edison

If at first the idea is not absurd, then there isno hope for it.

— Albert Einstein

APRIL/MAY 2005 7

Innovation at work in the 1960sArnold Spitalny

In 1961 I was asked if, in addition to my other duties, I would mind taking management responsibility for “that computer stuff that noone really understood.” My other duties at that time, as a Senior Systems Engineer at the Norden Division of United Aircraft (later UnitedTechnologies), were system planning and proposals for new weapon control systems and for aircraft and submarine display and controlsystems. The “computer stuff” was a large analog computer facility for simulation analysis and a little IBM 1620 computer. (It was usedmostly for some simple simulation analysis.)

IBM back then rented the digital computer hardware and provided the software for free. The software was mostly just the operatingsystem and the compilers. There was no commercially available application software. However, some software was also available fromthe IBM user group, SHARE (Society to Help Avoid Redundant Effort). My first action was to obtain a program from SHARE for monitor-ing and recording computer utilization. This created a computer record of who was using how much computer time for what applications.

About a year later, IBM invited a group of computer facility managers, including myself, to see how they were using computers tohelp design computers. Afterwards, I wrote a trip report explaining what they did. The report suggested that we consider how the com-puter might be used to assist engineers in the design of our products. Coincidentally, United had sent Norden a new Engineering VicePresident (VP). When the new VP came around to introduce himself, he had a copy of my report and asked for more specific recom-mendations. Thus, at the request of the new VP, I went to each engineering department manager and asked each one about his group’sengineering tasks and potential computer applications. When the VP then asked the Department Managers what they thought aboutusing the computer for engineering work, they were all for it because their input had been sought and included.

The next problem was how to develop all the new computer applications. IBM had provided a set of textbooks for a FORTRAN(FORmula TRANslation) programming language course. I gave the course to a group of interested engineers reading a chapter aheadof the class. Soon the engineers who excelled in the programming course said they wanted to work for me; their managers said theywanted me to be responsible for developing computer applications for their other engineers to use. As a result, I soon had four littlecomputer support groups:

1. electrical design support; circuit analysis and circuit board layout and routing2. mechanical and optical design support; stress and vibration analysis and optical pattern projections and optimization3. design data systems; parts lists by product, assembly and subassembly and cable wiring lists. (The design data programs were

written in COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language) instead of FORTRAN.)4. computer operationsI then asked IBM if they could provide assistance in software development for any of these applications, but especially for circuit

analysis. (Note: At that time, circuit design involved a lot of trial and error experimentation using lab models called “breadboards”because of the fast change experimental assembly method used. Another company had tried selling me a computer on the basis that theyhad a circuit analysis program that worked on it. So I asked IBM if they had anything like it.) They introduced me to a group of IBM mathe-maticians who were developing software for matrix analysis. It could be applied to the simultaneous equations for multiple loop circuits.

We agreed to jointly develop a program, with Norden responsible for defining the user-friendly input-output formats and IBM writingthe program. However, a problem arose when an IBM lawyer sent me a request to not tell anyone about this joint effort before they offi-cially released the final program. Software they planned to call IBSNAP (IBM System of Network Analysis Program). I had one of myengineers prepare a printout from punched cards of what a simple circuit analysis output would look like that illustrated our recommend-ed input and output formats. When the IBM lawyer arrived for a meeting, I showed him the printout and asked him if he could tellwhether it had been produced with a program developed by IBM or by Norden. I then told him there was no way we would participate inanything whose results we could not use in our projects or tell our customers about. Also, if IBM called the program IBSNAP, we wouldcall our version NORNAP (NORDEN Network Analysis Program).

The final result was ECAP (Electronic Circuit Analysis Program), with no restrictions on Norden’s use of the early versions prior tothe official IBM release and distribution. This software was the first widely used Circuit Analysis Program that replaced experimental labbreadboard circuits with computer simulations.

Note: The Computer Utilization Records, prepared with the help of the early SHARE software, was used from the beginning to gen-erate a monthly “Computer Utilization Report” that went to all engineering managers and computer users. In the beginning, users werealso sent monthly questionnaires listing how much computer time they used that month for each combination of project and application.They were also asked how many hours it would take to do this work without a computer. When I stopped getting answers to the hours-without-the-computer question, I stopped asking. Keep in mind engineering work obviously was being done before the engineers startedusing the computer. However, it was slower, less accurate, more experimental and less analytical. But, some things done with the com-puter really could not have been attempted manually. In fact, the computer provided the basis for new products that otherwise would nothave been possible.

Total computer hours per month, with scale adjustments for facility changes that improved throughput, were plotted on semi-logpaper. The graph produced a straight line that showed a doubling every 10 months for many years. No disruption occurred to this usagepattern when the computer facility costs were removed from overhead and allocated directly to projects in proportion to the computertime each project took.

Arnold Spitalny worked from 1955 to 1969 for Norden. Other companies include SSDS (Solid State Data Systems), ITT Labs andSpitalny and Co. as an independent consultant. He has a BEE from New York University and an MBA from the University of Connecticut.

day-to-day tasks. Many people find themselvestrapped in tasks that do not allow for participation ininnovation and yet they are expected to be innovative.

Will: Enthusiasm and drive rely on congruencybetween the team’s priorities and those of the organi-zation. Team ‘will” is also about sense of purpose,achievement, control and belonging that come withworking on a project.

Support: Support includes access to supervisorsand superiors, their true enthusiasm for the projectand for the team. Leader engagement is critical. Theleader participates as a team member or mentor notsolely as a supervisor!

The virtuous cycle The interaction of innovations tends to multiply

performance. As a result, the accumulation of innova-tions leads to an exponential growth in performance.The exponential nature of such growth has beenwidely documented and is widely known as the “S”curve, shown in Fig. 1 [Dent, 1993, and Rogers, 1995].The “S” curve is, in fact, a cumulative Gaussian distrib-ution resulting from the compounding of several inter-acting innovations. Each innovation provides its ownsmaller “S” curve, as shown in Fig. 2.

An exponential growth in performance is the resultof a virtuous cycle composed of the interactionsbetween research, innovation and economic impact.In this spiral, the promise of economic gain leads tothe allocation of resources for research. Research pro-duces innovation. Innovation triggers a generation ofwealth. The resulting wealth provides resources forresearch.

All three components are fundamental. As long asthe three components (or phases) of the cycle contin-ue, innovations will accumulate and performance willgrow exponentially. The virtuous spiral breaks whenany of its three components attains some limit. Forexample, saturating the potential for generating eco-nomic benefit will result in a decline in the economicimpact of innovations. This decline in turn results in adecline in resources for research that results in adecline in innovation.

In some cases, the decline is due to a physicallimit. The growth rate is the exponential coefficientthat characterizes the growth (of the industry based onthe new technology). For example, Gordon Moore hasobserved that transistor density in integrated circuitsdoubles every 12 months, leading to a doubled com-puting power on a chip every 18 months (cited asMoore’s Law). An important measure of the impact ofinnovation is the discontinuous change in the expo-nential growth rate. Such a change is called “rupture.”The incremental growth rate is an important measureof the impact of innovation.

The incremental growth rate is a direct result of theeconomic return on investment in research. Suchgrowth is conditioned by a number of factors, includ-ing the propensity of the economic and the adminis-trative climate towards innovation. The duration of anS-curve is determined by the exponential coefficientand the impact. For a cumulative Gaussian trend, thisis measured by the second moment (or standard devi-

8 IEEE POTENTIALS

Defining the entrepreneur

The term entrepreneur is derived from the old Frenchentreprende, which can be explained as a person whoorganizes, operates and assumes the risk for businessventures, especially an impresario. William Baumol, how-ever, suggests there are two distinct functions to beingan entrepreneur,

“There are, however, two uses of the term ‘entrepre-neur’ which, though both legitimate, are entirely differentin their substance. One uses the term to refer to some-one who creates and then, perhaps, organizes and oper-ates a new business firm, whether or not there isanything innovative in those acts. The second takes theentrepreneur as the innovator—as the one who trans-forms inventions and ideas into economical viable enti-ties, whether or not, in the course of doing so they createor operate a firm.”

Hence, one meaning is to survive for the present andthe second interpretation is to make advances for thefuture. Survival for the present obligates one to take cer-tain risks, to respect routines, to be organized, to be dili-gent and to be willing to engage in the repetitive, amongmany other qualities. The advancement for the future, onthe other hand, requires one to have vision, to take risk,and to be innovative. According to Schumpter, this innov-ative aptitude is “present in only a small fraction of thepopulation.”

According to David McClelland, the need for achieve-ment—or N-achievement—is the most distinguishablequality of entrepreneurs. He writes...it is internal factors,the human values and motives that lead man to exploitopportunities, to take advantage of favorable trade condi-tions; in sort, to shape his own destiny...Desire toachieve can never be satisfied by money, but estimatesof profitability in money terms can provide concreteknowledge of how well one is doing one’s job.”

—Ying Lowrey

Excerpted and adapted from, The Entrepreneur and Entre-

preneurship: A neoclassical approach, a working paper from the

Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration

US small firms . . .

1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employers2) Generated 60 to 80% of net new jobs annually

over the last decade.3) Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employ-

ee than large patenting firms. These patents also aretwice as likely as large firm patents to be among the onepercent most cited.

4) In 2003, there were an estimated 572,900 newfirms, 554,800 firm closures and 35,037 bankruptcies.

5) Two-thirds of new employer firms survive at leasttwo years and about half survive at least four years.

Source: US Small Business Administration

ation) of the derivative (the Gaussian density func-tion). The impact is an important measure for choos-ing between competing public policy decisions, forexample, passing of congressional bills, allocation offederal funds for healthcare research, elevating home-land security and so forth.

More specifically, the S-curve permits the processof technology innovation to be described in terms offive phases, as shown in Fig. 3. The phases tend todetermine the nature of the innovation. For example,Rupture (phase 1) tends to result from a new theoryor method, often made possible by a new ontology orthe emergence of enabling technologies. Early devel-opment (phase 2) tends to be characterized by refine-ment to ontologies, theories and methods, and byinnovation in the form of new devices or systems.Expansion (phase 3) is generally characterized by theemergence of a dominant design for devices or sys-tems, and refinements to component devices or tech-nologies. Maturation (phase 4) and Saturation (phase5) mark a period of diminishing returns on invest-ment, and refinements to devices or systems.

Thriving in this era Innovation is an undisputed catalyst for society’s

growth, yet many of us fail to exploit the opportunityor lack a climate that encourages and rewards innova-tion. To overcome this deficiency, Drucker (1993)offers the following advice:

• Analyze the opportunities, inside the firm and itsindustry and in the external environment. Do notinnovate for the future, innovate for the present. Tim-ing is everything. The right idea at the wrong time isworth nothing.

• Innovation is both conceptual and perceptual.Therefore, look at the financial implications but alsotalk to people, particularly customers, and analyzehow to meet the opportunity.

• The innovation has to be simple and focused tobe effective. Don’t try to be too clever. Don’t try to dotoo many things at once.

• Start small to be effective. Don’t be grandiose.Take an incremental approach.

• Aim at leadership and dominate the competitionin the particular area of innovation as soon as possible.

In summary, as an innovator, you need to inculcatethe following primary abilities to progress toward yourdream:

1) Sensitivity—To see implied problems and oppor-tunities;

2) Fluency—Ability to produce a large numbers ofideas;

3) Novelty—Ability to produce unusual but aptideas;

4) Flexibility—Ability to change frames of reference;5) Analysis—To deal with larger sets of information;6) Synthesis—To construct from diverse information;7) Complexity—To simultaneously deal with multi-

ple factors;8) Evaluation—To produce valued difference from

ideas;9) Courage—To redefine, to advocate, and to be

wrong! and

10) Enjoy absurdity—To let ideas run. Thus, it might be prudent to conclude with another

quote from Albert Einstein:Ideas are a dime a dozen but people who put them

into action are PRICELESS.Only the resourceful will prevail. Got innovation?

Read more about it• “Managing Creativity and Innovation,” (Harvard

Business Essentials) Harvard Business School Press,(2003)

• D. C. Mowery and N. Rosenberg, “Paths of Inno-vation,” Cambridge University Press, (1998)

• D. Leonard, “Wellsprings of Knowledge: Buildingand Sustaining the Sources of Innovation,” HarvardBusiness School Press, (1998)

• E. Bono, “Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step byStep,” Perennial, (1973)

• E.M. Rogers, “Diffusion of innovations,” NewYork: The Free Press, (1995)

• H. Dent, “The Great Boom Ahead,” HyperionPress, (1993)

• J. A. Schumpeter, “Capitalism, Socialism andDemocracy,” New York: Harper & Brothers, (1950)

• J. Byrd and P.L.Brown, “The Innovation Equa-tion: Building Creativity and Risk-Taking in YourOrganization,” Pfeiffer, (2002)

• J. Hirshberg, “The Creative Priority: Driving Inno-vative Business in the Real World,” HarperCollins Pub-lishers, (1998)

• J. M. Utterback, “Mastering the Dynamics ofInnovation,” Harvard Business School Press, (1994)

• M. Gladstone, “The tipping point: Or how littlethings can make a big difference.” New York: LittleBrown and Company, (2000)

• P. Drucker, “Innovation and Entrepreneurship,”Harper Business, (1985)

• R. Foster and S.Kaplan, “Creative Destruction:Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperformthe Market and How to Successfully Transform Them,”Currency, (2001)

• T.Y. Cao, “Conceptual Developments in 20thCentury Field Theories,” Cambridge Univ. Press,(1997)

Resource websites • http://www.thinksmart.com• http://www.entrepreneurship.com• http://www.innovation.gov.uk

About the authorsGuruprasad Madhavan is an Associate Editor of

IEEE Potentials from the Department of Bioengineer-ing, Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering &Applied Science, and the School of Management, StateUniversity of New York, Binghamton, New York. Hecan be reached at <guru@binghamton.edu>.

Diana Anderson is an M.S Candidate in the Depart-ment of Bioengineering, Thomas J. Watson School ofEngineering & Applied Science at the State Universityof New York, Binghamton, New York. She can bereached at <diana.anderson@binghamton.edu>.

APRIL/MAY 2005 9