Ian Barclay, Philip Eolroyd and Jenny Taft

Universities of Liverpool and madford

Abstract : This paper introduces a new d e l of w e innovation manaqelent process as it applies to the complex environment of a Concurrent Engineering prcqraue. By looking in detail at the process, the question - can innovation be managed? - is addressed. Current ideas on managing complexity and chaotic systes are used to develop a recursive nodel, which, from its --like shape is tened a "Sphenomorph". A hierarchical collection of Sphenowrphs combine to fon the complete innovation process. hch sphenomorpb colprises four distinct staqes, each requiring a different management style for success. The need for adaptive maqers, capable of dealing with all four stages of the innovation process, is considered and lethods are reviewed whereby such management characteristics may be identified and encouraged through appropriate training and development.

1. Introduction

The importance of the new product development process (NPDP) to corporate success is now finly recognised (Roberts et al) and is reflected in continuing interest as to how this process might be best "maged". In the early Victorian era, the UK econony was driven by inventive entrepreneurs, supported by enabling legislation and risk-taking investors, a culture of innovation existed. This was reflected in the great exhibition of 1851 (Babbaqe) and the proliferation of both product and process innovations (Cantwell). This flowed from a truly innovative culture and an ability to manage the development and mufacture of the products (Deane). The UK appears to have lost this innovative drive and ability to w a g e the "concept to customer" process (wisner). Evidence of this is suggested by the declining share in world patents registered, world market etc. At the saw tile as this suggested national decline in innovativeness has occurred, there are still OK companies that lead the world in couercially successful, technology based new products (Lloyd et al). Hence, a basic question is "Uhy the few and not the many?". supplenentary questions are .What is it about certain orqanisations that allows the couercial innovation process to flow successfully?n and "can transferable lessons be learnt?". In this article, we suqqest answers to these questions that could be of use to practising technologists, engineers and management specialists.

2. ?be Historical perspective

over the past 60 years, a great deal of research has been conducted into the WDP. The evidence of Eopkins' work suggested that despite decades of research and experience, l i t t l d Fbanged in tens of product development success rates, with f a m e rates being consistent at about 351 of all new products developed. The research work of Barclay et a1 analysed all the past major research programmes relating to the WDP, and it vas found that the success attributes could be placed in five broad categories : professional raaaqerent, qood larket kwwledqe, a unique and superior product, good conunication/coordinatation and proficiency in technical activities. whilst certain factors cao be clearly identified in retrospective, the cultivation of these factors within a practical operational application frcuevork is still a w t elusive step.

Modelling the WPDP has also proved to be a difficult research

area. Generalised -1s have been proposed that do provide a conceptual frarework. Booz, Allen 6 Eamilton put forward a Seven Step lodel of the NPDP identifying the activities involved in bringing new product ideas to the larketplace. Co&per et a1 also defined a staqed miel and a broader lodel, the Contingency W e l l (Shrivastava et al) was proposed t o take into account additional environmental and organisational variables. Cooper's lodel tends to be the basis of new product development guides whilst the Contingency model offers a qreater ranqe and flexibility for conceptual and organisational application. The recognition that the WPDP is not a series of sequential stages, but a parallel, and iterative series of events, bas only recently been documted in the literature. Our new d e l has been developed from past research and practical experience. We believe that this new lode1 provides for conceptual, educational and operational needs. king based on the concept of "Hanaging Complexity" within the Chaos Theory frcuework (Gleick), the lodel relates directly to the lavels of complexity found within the WPDP.

3. Increasinq Complexity in a Cbanqinq Vorld

The idea of taking past research evidence of success in innovation and converting it into a practically applicable format is conceptually lost appealing. So, the second major question is "Can the lessons of the past be used to direct the future?". The answer, unfortunately must be "No". This is because the industrial c h " x s in which the past research evidence was collected are substantially different from those existing today. The earlier work was conducted in a relatively stable industrial climate. Economic and competitive factors changed little, allowing companies to continue with little need to adjust their operational and managerial processes. This is clearly show by the fact that very similar results have been found from basically the saw research prcqraues being conducted with a two or three decade interval (Carter et all bpkins and Bailey). The new world scenario is one, increasing competition, reducing lead times and the need to develop a consumer oriented, flexible response. In the future, business organisations will be certain of one thing and that is continuing champ.

Betwen 1987 and 1992 new product lead tiles have reduced from approxilately 23 wntbs to 14 months. This change bas also been accompanied by a reduction in projected life cycles from 12 years to 8 years (Taft et al). A lot of this reduction has been throw the introduction of Concurrent Bngineering (a), an approach to nw product developlent specifically desiqned to neet the new world scenario of increasingly competitive demands. * desire to manage the complexity of the process was also clearly st" in ?aft et al's 1987 survey ubere tbere was a clear trend to introduce new product quides and procedures with sole 73% of the companies using U. The

concept is an approach to the efficient and effective m a q e m t of tbe complexities of the llpDp and this leads us to the third question nbn -vation be laaaged?'

4. Be Ihaaqelent Dimension

current and prevalent corporate goal is that of waging yet these words contain change or maqinq innovation (Porter).

72

seemingly contradictory concepts. The NPDP must be one that is manageable by the organisation but, at the same tine, the organisation must grant sufficient freedom to allow innovation to flourish. That is, the opposing concepts of control and freedom are essential, according to Peters and Watenan, to achieve the commercial success of a new product. So, what is "management" in the context of product innovation?. In order to answer this question, w need to examine the intrinsic nature of the NPDP. and draw from it appropriate analogies that night be practically applicable within the new world scenario.

One of the nost couonly used management moqels of the NPDP is that of the product life cycle (Luffmann et al). This is the "birth to death' cycle that all products undergo. This model does not show the inherent complexity of the management of the NPDP. It does not show the unagerial choice process that exists in the early stages that we shall refer to as developing the "Diversity", nor the "Decimation" of generated options through an evaluation and selection process (Gould). Similarly, in the latter stages of the process, there is no reference to the changing manaqerial requirements as the chosen program is pursued (%Developlent"). Pinally, there is the precise programme of activities that must be followed to bring the prograue to a conclusion ("Dedication"). These factors: Diversity, Decimation, Development and Dedication fon four important decision points for the manaqelent of the innovation process. we call these four aspects the "4D" Phases of the NPDP as shown in Pique 1, and they are described in more details below.

DIVERSITY (Ideas)

DECIHATION (Selection)

DEVELOPWENT (Ref inesent )

DEDICATION (The Product)

Figure 1 : The '4D" Phases

At each of these "4D" decision pints, the future success or failure of a specific :kw Product programme is brought into sharp focus. Not only must Hanagement take the appropriate decision, they must manage a process that is initially broad, ill defined and vague but which must, in the end Wase, produce a single, focused objective, the New Product. These product focused decisions might have far reaching consequences for the whole organisation in tens of its ability to qrow, adapt and learn from its mistakes.

Based on the organic analogy, there are those, such as Willer, who liken the business enterprise to hoieostatic systems that function to maintain an optimal state or equilibrium based on a "business-as-usualn environment. Disequilibrium, a period of instability which occurs as a natural response to change, (such as a new product development) is followed by a return to equilibrium, albeit at a higher or more functional level. But, against a backqround of rapid developments in technology and product innovation, in shorter product lead tiles and reducing product life cycles, the question of whether such equilibriur or status-quo based theories are feasible or even desirable must be addressed. In direct contrast, we argue that preoccupation with the business-as-usual enviromnt will lead to staqnation and decay, and the eventual demise of the business organisation. Major developments in physics and biology (Gould), and the advent of chaos theory (Gleick), that random behaviour can occur in m e siiple deterministic system, suggests that a state of turbulence or 'chaos" is important for organisational survival. What is needed in response to dynamic changes in the environment is continual evolution as the feature of all business organisations; that is, both "control" and "freedomn emerging from "directed chaos"; the Hanaqelent of Innovation.

5. A Wev View of product Innovation

The term "directed chaos" means a management philosophy where vision gives direction; early identification of many options gives variety (Diversity); speedy evaluation (Decimation) gives a focus leading to a future activity emphasis (Development and Dedication). This we call the 'hture" activity emphasis and it is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2. Eere the future options and problems are dealt with as early as possible in the life cycle.

Start Deadline

Diversity kciiat ion

Developaent Dedication

Figure 2. The Future Activity Rmphasis

Under the "old' scenario, a "Current" emphasis mode would apply, leading to a reverse of the above wedge shaped diagram which we have called a Sphenomorphic iodel of the New Product Development Process. (trom the Greek "sphene" - a wedge, and "morphe" - fon). A high leJel of resource is allocated to the development process as early as possible after an evaluation of the total process. These early stages of development focus on manufacturing ns well as product detinition. This is the Concurrent Engineering concept, as described by Teresko. The Sphenomorph concept as described above relates only to a simple, single project. But most practical developments consist of many 'mini-pro jects', false starts, tangential investigations and parallel studies. That is, a host of Sphenonorphs make up the whole Sphenowrph of the complete program=. Thus the Sphenowrph concept can be extended to cover a full engineering proyramne by regarding the total process as a Recursive Sphenomorph (Fique 3 ) .

Oecislon Points

Figure 3. Tbe spbenolorpbic Engineering Program

The recursive nature or self-similarity of the Sphenomorph concept leads us to the inclusion of some aspects of chaos and complexity theory into the discussion. Chaos theory, as described by Schroeder and Handelbrot, has three main characteristics that apply directly to the Recursive Sphenomorphic model. These are that complex behaviour emerges from simple relationships; the importance of initial starting conditions and self-similarity over a wide range of scales. Any engineering prograile should start with a high degree of complexity hut will evolve into order and certainty (Anti-Chaos). An initial simple concept will geherate a myriad projects (Diversity). The initial chices (DeciMtion) will largely determine

73

the final outme. Each project will tben be vorked upon (Development) until it either reaches its desired conclusion (Dedication) or bas to be re-tbought (back to the Diversity Pbase) . The above siqlistic description of the l l ~ ~ p shous that it matches

spbenolorpa and m m i v e spl"opb wdels. eractly those conditions that specify chaos Theory and OUT

6 . Z h e ~ i n ~ m l g D w J a e p t

6.1 Umgbq eqbasis and style

We believe that the Recursive spbenolorpb rodel, with its 'ID' Pbases, and their decision points, can provide raaagerent with educational, conceptual and practical help in controlling and directing the innovation process. It can be used at the macro level (engineering programme) as the basis of a colprebensive guide or procedure, through to detailed project level. It CUI also provide a conon, conceptual frame work for personnel working within the innovation process and be used in their education and training. This latter point is, perhaps, the lost important use of the rodel as it can be used in educating, traininq and developinq pmounel to provide a reservoir of people capable of performing in high powered programme tams. Thus the conceptual frame work of the Recursive Spb"orph provides for a stepwise approach to reducing complexity.

* Step 1 : Diversity (Researcb/wetworking). To resear& as ruch as psible, to consider many options, to generate diversity.

* Step 2 : Decilation (Focus/onJaaise). Focus attention and relove uncertainty tbrougb effective organisation of resources, to decimate.

* step 3 : Developlent (sstablishing/leading). TO test and establish effective boundaries to the venture, ie, to develop.

* Step 4 : Dedication (Bngineering/Action). To eagineer solutions and deploy tber viably, ie, to dedicate effort :

TIE "t of tbe overall process liewKk different aphis, capability and approach as the programe prom& The wdel recognises the need for quite different styles of laMgerent the 'ID' Waser, of the process. Further, it recognises that any part of the process is itself a mini-project. sucb a recursive set of projects intmdwes the chaos theory concept in that the IPDP has a fractal like nature. Tbe implications of this obsarvation are that tbere will always be a sensitivity to initial conditions; colplexity m y emerge under certain initial codtiom and tbere llust be self-sinilarity at all scales. The first and second of these accouut for wch of the apparent randorpees or 'luck' associated with m y projects, whilst the third indicates the need for a very special kind of m q e m t trait able to cope with the changing nature of the process at each of the projects stages.

6.2. Tbe OPpaeM e At the start of a new product programme, m y individual

projects lust be explored, coordinated and refined. we describe this precess as vertical #etworking. d~ the prograue proceeds, options are gradually reduced to produce a single, dedicated OutCole. Toward the end of the program, activity is lainly concerned with the efficient finishing of a clearly defined tiletable of effort (ow Horizontal Engineering). Wh& is of interest here is the radically opposed nature of the tw concepts, and the fact that one bas to evolve into the other as it passes through the "ID' phases. In tens of the spbeaolorpb model, vertical leGorlring and Eorirontal Bngineering are orthoqoaally oppoxed as shorn in Figure 4.

networking hgineering Pi- 4. Ktrorlripg v. Rogineeriw

74

m, as the programme proceeds f m start to finish, there has to be a cowlete re-orientation of laaageslent style demding different attitudes and approaches. It is essential for succe8s that a knager of an innovative progrape needs to recognise these contrasting and chaaging r-. As the procpaae proceed9, the Hanager rust be able to adjust their style to suit the particular phw of the developunt. At the start, for example, his/her role is one of facilitation, ensuring that resources are available to allw the staff to operate. the program loves into the completion pbase, there needs to be lore of a monitoring and controlling role. Accorodating these changes places great demands on the individual lanager or programme tean leader..

6.3. Tbe spbenompb h d O n

In practise, the sphenolorpbic process is fractal like in nature. A multitude of project sphemnorphs+ake up the overall programme Sphenolorpb. This leans that tbe engineering programme lust be laMged holistically. ?he early stages of this process lay be represented by tbe generation of m y alterhtive options (Diversity). Each option is evaluated against specific criteria (eg. financial, engineering, larket etc.) and '&/Eo Go' decisions (Decilation) are lade. %IUS a se~lndary level of strategic framework is created within whicb the procparpe proceeds via the next level of ~pbenmrpb. In the ideal scenario, this fractal-like process continues until tbe Developleat and Dedication stages leave a single, final sphenolorph (as shorn in Fiqure 3 above). Tha h q r of such a complex, wide ranging process mast be capable

of recognising the cunent level and its demands in tens of action, approach, facilitation needs and style of

7 . m e r e u " t I l e y b m b

required.

7.1. !he basic "&s

The traditional view of a new product developrent program is one of the front end being driven by a free wheeling, innovative type with the back end needing a task driven type. Tbis view has been supported by NCb rasBivch (Isaksen)) into the creative and innovative nature of individuals and pups. However, this basic view of the process emxged, as we discussed earlier, in a fairly stable econdc enviromnt. with the imeasingly competitive

deliver the reduced lead tiles demded to remain competitive. B i s requirement has been let by the love to a parallel and iterative process, typically exemplified in the COMwrent Engineering philosophy (Clark and Fujiloto). Given the above arCpaent in favour

an e.ngineming program, the deaids on the program la~gers are inense. wy lust have a holistic view of both the basic process of innovation and of the conpany's developmt to lanafacture process. Tbe implications of this for practisiag imvation la~agers is that they lust be capable of either (or indeed, both) switdhg frm one extrere style to aaotber or utilisiag the talents of the programme fxm as appropriate. shall MYY use -I@ lodel to explore the "& of these opposed

M h Of the plW& bus- WhUWlt, this w d cilllllot

Of the neV world sceaario and the frXbl, sphenolorphic MtIlKe Of

7.2. The individual innovation lamager

!he basic question to be ansvered here is u b e t k it is reasonable to erpect an individual laoager to "pass the broad spectnm of laaage#nt styles that are delanded within a new product procpa# developlept. They w t , of course, have the relevant technical knowledge and also be innovative and I(irt0n's work is of interest bere. This work uses a psychometric test to detenine an iadividuul's innovative ~tIlKe, especially their approach to @la solving. oging a questionnaire, the individual is a888888d on an innovative scale ranging from Adaptive to Innovative. people with hi@ scores are considered to be innovative, bringing radical

to problems and generating many alternative solutions,

with a majority of the^ being impractical. ¶'be Adaptive individual, in contrast, produces lainly workable ideas, all within the boundaries of the original problen or paradip.

Fbe squat tben follows that the Innovative individual is used for the 'front endn gewration of a proliferation of ideas (Diversity) with a limited ability to select realistic options. By contrast, the Adaptive individual is used for the 'back end" task completion (Dedication). In between these two extrews are the people that have a balance of the two characteristics and who can handle the selection of realistic options (Decimation) and translation into a viable product (Development). Howver this work was &ne mainly in the 'Old World' scenario and its relevance to concepts such as "rrent Engineering has yet to be proven. %a things however, are clear in regard to Kirton's work. These are that an un&rstanding of the MaptivelInnovative profile helps the individual to unde.rstand the overall innovation process and the opposing needs. '&condly, a score slightly above the lean is a positive asset for an individual managing an innovative prograne.

Benan has also developed an cmpational specific psychometric test based on the theory that the left half of the brain handles the logical, procedural a&nistrative activities. In contrast, the right side of the br& deals with the abstract, artistic, strategic and people oriented activities. Her"s work produces a four dimensional profile (as distinct from Kirtonls uni- dimensional one) for each individual. Again, standard profiles have been produced for specific job functions, including that of Engineering Nanager. The lesson here, in tens of innovation m a p e n t , appears to be the need for a reasonably well balanced profile on each dimion. This indicates that the manager is comfortable with the progranefs changing emphasis. Other relevant pycboletric tests exist which have associated with t h job specific nom or profiles (for example, the Predictive Index test, based on the work of Marston). In our experience, the lore dimensions that the profiling systen has, the lore use it is in analysing manageaent capability in the innovation field.

Finally in this section, it is interesting to look at the work of Huller within the Shell organisation which led to the idea of the "Helicopter" principle. This work was started to try to detenine the characteristics of successful individuals in large organisations. It found that such individuals did have factors in collon. They had an ability to rise above the detail and see the total view (Tbe 'Helicoptern principle); a high level of creativity but with the ability to "keep their feet on the ground"; strong analytical skills and a Sense of reality. This work, perhaps yre than any other, sbcifs the extent of the opposing Vertical letvorlung and Eorirontal Engineering requirements. The h a n d s here are for an individual with strategic vision and yet attention to detail; for high creativity yet strong analytical skills. The research found this type of individual to be a very rare breed indeed, as is the case for good magers of the innovation process.

8. Dwelopiag hovation lkpaaers

The fractal nature of the innovation process detenines the required laMgerent style and, therefore, the developrent needs of innovation wagers. At a basic level is the question of : The next in OUT series of questions, given the mplexity of the discussion above, is '1s it reasonable to expect to find all the above in one individual?'. This is a %tue or nurture' debate. There is no doubt that individuals do exist that latch the profiles that appear to provide a fin base for development into successful innovation lanagers. However, it is clear from related literature and experience that they are a very rare natural breed indeed. This m?ans that the developrent of the wagers of the innovation process bas to be planned. We would suggest that the keys to this developlent are as follcus (taking technical capability as read) :

* D"d the innovation pmcess : whilst lost engineers and scientists would clearly recocylise a new product development prograne as such, we would argue that very feu uould have a detailed

' 75

knowledge of the intricate innovation process. Their fariliarity is lore likely to be with their orqanisationfs 1~ procedure or guide. There is a strong argument in favour of them understanding the innovation process per se. This should also include the way that management -is and style has to change as the program proceeds.

* hierstand the total organisation : As lost new product programs now demd that all aspects, from design to manufacture, be considered at the start, an understanding of the total organisation is another key to success.

* Understand preferred style : At the heart of any innovation programme, whether it is individual or team based, is the manager. Bach individual m g e r brings to the process their own set of role and style preferences. Without a frawmrk within which to assess these preferences, they MY well not be able to operate successfully because of role avoidance, conflict etc. &wing oneself is the first step in lanaging others.

* hierstand mbers preferred a roles : This is simply a logical extension the above. By knowing their teaD W r S ' particular tear role preferences, appropriate approaches can be devised for each tear individual. Adopting a relevant style toward each individual in the tear is gcd management practice. The program manager cannot operate in a facilitating role if he/& is not prepared to adapt their style to suit the individual.

* Job sbaaoving : An organisation does not need wry innovation program laaagers and one of the best ways in which to develop such people is to let th ashadown one of the better or lore successful current innovation managers.

Adopting the approach described above not only allows the new managers to be developed, the &le organisation benefits as a greater nuber of personnel have a better understanding of the concepts and practise of innovation ranagerent.

9. Questions posed and iuwered

we have posed several questions relating to the management of innovation. It is now our intention to try provide our ami-, using a mixture of researched evidence and experience.

* are sow colpanies consistently innovative? : It is our contention that successful companies operate in a Sphenolorphic mode, the nlloose-tightn system described by Peters and Watenan. They also have a culture conducive to innovation and mger~ who are co&ortable with the level of uncertainty.

* can general, transferable lessons be learnt? : "Yes'! This is the lain point of our article.

*Canpastresearcbbeusedasaguidetothefuture?: nNon! The world has changed significantly and loved on since much of the research was done.

* can innovation be : If we define management as the effective and efficient application of resources to produce a neu product,'then the answer is '~esw. we argue tbat resources, especially people, mist be latched to the innovation program as a spheaolorphic structure.

* m t is ma"& in the innovation -text? : product innovation ranagerent, as oppsed to production ranaqerent, is the Mnagemt of a process having a high degree of uncertainty and complexity and which changes phase and *is as the program goes through.

* A l l in a single individual? : Can one individual have all the capabilities needed for innovation raaagerent? The answ here is a qualified 'Yes", as these are extremely rare individuals. For lost

people there lust be significant training and developlent in the innovation process and its ianageient with the reliance on teals.

References * Babbage C (1851) "The Exposition of 1851n, Cassells, London (Reprinted 1968). * Barclay I and Benson U B (1990) "Success in New Product Dev6loprent', Leadership and Organisation Developlent Journal, Special Issues, Vol 11, No 6, December. * Boos, Allen and Eamilton (1982) "New Product Developmt in the 1980fsa, Boor, Allen and Baiilton, New York. * Cantuell J (1991) aBistorical Trends in International Patterns of Technological Innovation", New Perspectives on the late Victorian Bconoiy (Ed J Forem-Peck, Canbridge University Press. * Carter C F and Williams B R (1957) "Industry and Technical Prcqress", Oxford University Press * Clark K B and Fujiwto T (1991) "Concurrent Engineering : The Product Jevelopaent Environment for the 1990'sn, Adison Wesley Inc, Boston, Uass. * Cooper R G (1983) "A Process W e 1 for Industrial New Product Developnt", IBBE Transactions on mineering Uanageient, Vol EH-30, NO 1, pp 2-11. * Deane P (1965) "The First Industrial Revolution", Cdrbridge University Press. * Gleick J (1987) "Chaos : Uaking a New Science", cardinal, London. * Gould S J (1990) "Wonderful Life : The Burgess Shale and the Natwe of History", Butchinson. * Henan N (1981) "The Creative Brain", Brain Books, Lake Lure, North Carolina. * aopkins D S and Bailey E L (1971) "New Product Pressures", The Conference Board, June, pp 16-24. * Bopkins D S (1981) "The New Product Winners and Losers", Research Uanageaent, Hay, pp 12-17. * Isaksen S G (1986) "Frontiers of Creativity Researcb : Beyond the Basics", Brearly Ltd, Buffalo, New York. * Kirton H J (1976) "Adaptors and Innovators : A Description and lleasure"< Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 61, pp 622-629. * Lloyd T and Skeel S (1992) "Why Genans like the best of British", Uanaqewnt Today, December pp 1-52. * Luffmn G, Sanderson S, Lea E and Kenny B (1988) nBwiness Policy : An Analytical Introduction", Blackwell. * Handelbrot B B (1977) "Fractals : Form, Chance and Diiension", W B Preenan, New York. * Uarston W U (1988) "Emotions of Norial People" (Ed I Lister) T Lister Ltd, Onskirk. * Hiller G (1965) "Living Systems", Behavioral Science pp 209-211. * Huller B (1970) "The Search for Qualities Essential to Advancelent in a Large Industrial Group", PhD Thesis, Utrecht University. * Peters T J and Watenan R E (1987) "In Search of Excellence", Harper and Rowe, New York. * Porter H E (1990) "The Competitive Advantage of Nations", Barvard wlsiness Review, Vol 90, No 2, Uarch-April, pp 73-93. * Roberts R B and lleyer U 8, (1991) "Product Strategy and Corporate Successn, Engineering Uanageient Review, Spring, pp 4-18. * Schroeder H (1991) "Fractals, Chaos and Power Laws", W B Freeman. * Shrivastava P and Souder E W (1987) "The Strategic Uanageient of Technological Innovation : a Review and Hodel", Journal of Hanaqement Studies, Vol 24, No 1, January. * Taft J 6 Barclay I (1992) "Siiultaneous Engineering: A Uanagewnt Evaluation and Establishment M e 1 and Uethodolqyn, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineering (USA) Uanagelent Society International Conference, "Managing in a Global Environient" , Eaton Town, New Jersey, October, pp 119-122. * Teresko J (1990) " Engineering : Where Coipetitive success Begins", Industry Week, Novemkr 19, pp 30-38. * Wisner H J (1981) "English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 18%-1980n, carbridge University mess.

76