Upload
sayyadmannan
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
1/80
the best o
ieeeusa todays engineer
O Iotio
B Geogi C. Steto, Eito
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
2/80
Published by IEEE-USA.
Copyright 2007 by the IEEE. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
Edited and compiled by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager.
Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design.
This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through unding provided by a special dues assessment o IEEE
members residing in the United States.
Copying this material in any orm is not permitted without prior written approval rom the IEEE.
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
3/80
Table O Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Best Practices in Innovation: Learning rom Others Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Top 10 Innovation Tools or New Millennium Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Engineers on Innovation: A View rom the Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Not Invented Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Keep Their Clothes on and More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Do Engineers Improve Lives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Unleash Your Inner Innovator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Ten Thoughts on Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Is Innovation the Answer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Backscatter: The Hat Trick Having it Both Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Report Sets Agenda or Fostering Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Stealth Proession: How Do Engineers and R&D Benet the Nation? . . . . . . . . . . 48
How the Government Reocused on Innovation and Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
How the Government Reocused on Innovation and Competitiveness (Part II) . . . . . . . . 53
Engineer, Promote Thysel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
U.S. Competitiveness and the Proession o Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Are we Doing Enough or R&D Funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
IEEE-USAs 2007 Innovation Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
IEEE-USA Launches an Innovation Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
4/80
4 Introduction
Innovation is the latest buzzword rolling o everyones lips. And innovation seems to be thenew raison detre. People, employees, managers and corporate executives are all striving tobe innovative.
It is an easy word to toss around. Many companies that include innovation in their mission
statements also list innovation, or being innovative, as one o their core values and some
see innovation as part o their competitive strategies.
But, what do we mean by innovation and how do we get more o it?
Joyce Wyco, executive director o the Innovation Network in Denver, Colorado, writes:
Some organizations are acknowledged as innovative by virtue o their ow o new prod-
ucts or services (3M, HP, Rubbermaid, Fedex). Perhaps a better defnition o organizational
innovation would relate to the ability to intentionally change to meet new opportunities.
Wyco explains that the denition incorporates three primary aspects:
Having a common direction or vision
Recognizing and deciding on opportunities related to the vision
Intentionally and eectively moving in a direction to achieve the objective
She says that the better organization establishes an environment that supports these activities
and the more people within the organization who are ollowing the path, the more innovative it
will be in every aspect o its activities. Further, Wyco writes that the challenges o organiza-
tional inormation seem to be:
Developing and communicating a powerul vision to every person within the
organization.
Creating an environment that welcomes and continuously searches or opportunities one with a rich fow o ideas, inormation and interaction within the organization ...
among customers, the environment, competitors, suppliers and employees at all lev-
els and unctions. It is a risk-tolerant environment that celebrates successes, as well
as great tries that didnt work. This environment is also air play and shares respect,
rewards and responsibilities at all levels.
Stimulating eective action on opportunities at the individual, team, group and organi-
zation level creating a system with enough reedom or play in it to allow time or
thinking, reedom to tinker around with new stu, resources or experimenting, eec-
tiveness training opportunities open to all, and a constant incubation o pilot projects ...
a constantly evolving learning lab.
With all o this deep thinking, energy and action revolving around innovation going on
our world is bound to become a better place...right?
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
5/80
I dont have the answer to that question. But what I have done is reach back into the Todays
Engineerarchives, and compile or you some o our best articles on innovation what it
means, what it is, how to do it, what to think about it, how to achieve it, and how it might be
aecting some aspects o engineering.
A good companion book to this one is William C. Millers latest and rst in a series o three
e-books or IEEE-USA on innovation: Innovation Conversations Book 1: The Innovation Pro-
cess Energizing Values-Centered Innovation rom Start to Finish. That book is now available
to IEEE members at a special, discounted price o $9.95 at www.ieeeusa.org/communica-
tions/ebooks/.
Happy innovating!
Georgia C. Stelluto, Editor
InTrOduCTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
6/80
6 Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know
By Gus Gaynor
Framing the issues
While the study o innovation has dramatically increased in the past decade, and produced a
great number o academic papers and business-related articles, engineers understanding o
the process has not been greatly enhanced. Academic engineering studies have not produced
a theory o the innovation process, or a Seven Steps to Successul Innovation. No designated
guru exists to tell us how to do it.
Most academic and business literature on innovation ocuses on case studies and attempts
to reach conclusions or recommendations that can be adopted across industries and organiza-
tions. In most cases, the inormation deals with the past rather than the uture. It tells us what
has been, not what will be. Its history. In some cases, the inormation is anecdotal. In other
cases, anecdotal evidence has been massaged to validate certain hypotheses. This type oresearch provides little benet or innovation practitioners.
But innovation is personal. Its unique. Its about timing. Its organization directed. And, its
complex. Every innovation has distinct characteristics. How it originates, the approaches
taken, and how engineers practice it in one organization may be totally dierent rom how they
proceed in another organization.
So what is the engineers role in innovation? By using a ramework, perhaps we can identiy
the undamental issues in the innovation process, and examine how engineers can participate
in making a value-added contribution on this uncharted road.
The innovation ramework relative to products, processes, and services includes an understand-
ing o the ollowing:
What is innovation?
What are the sources o innovation?
Is there a process or innovation?
What are the organizational requirements?
Who are the innovators?
Becoming the innovator
What Is Innovation?
Innovation in the abstract has little meaning it exists in an organizational context and in thereal world. It cannot be considered as a single-issue. Innovation also involves invention and
creativity. It is multi-disciplinary, multi-unctional, and global. Its success depends on the in-
novators, support people, managements willingness to deal with rustration and uncertainties,
and the qualitative and quantitative input to decision processes. Investing in the innovator or
the innovation comes with no guarantees.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
7/80
So what is innovation? For our purposes:
Its about bringing new products and services to the marketplace; and
Its about developing new processes to manuacture products more eectively, e-
ciently, and with the economic use o resources.
Why dont we see more innovation? Unortunately, innovation is oten conused with creativity
and invention. We even hear people talk o the innovative idea. Who knows what that means?
Are there innovative and non-innovative ideas? Are their good and bad ideas? Are there useul
ones? Lets clariy the vocabulary. Here are some general descriptions o innovation:
Peter F. Drucker1 theorizes that innovation is the introduction o a new product, process, or
service into the marketplace. Innovation is not science or technology, but value.
Andrew H. Van de Ven2 considers innovation the development and implementation o new
ideas, by people who, over time, engage in transactions with others within an institutional
order.
Like Drucker, Frederick Betz3 discusses innovation as introducing new products, processes, orservices into the marketplace.
An unknown source4 suggests that, Innovation is a mindset. Innovation is best described as
a pervasive attitude that allows businesses to see beyond the present and create a uture vi-
sion.
Drucker, Van de Ven, and Betz emphasize the idea o introducing new products, processes, and
services. Each o these descriptions includes new ideas, people, transactions, an institutional
context, and the marketplace. The unknown source adds the idea o having a mindset. Inno-
vation wont happen without it.
These descriptions o innovation include all the activities and requirements in the idea and
concept to commercialization process. The word, implementation, may be substituted or in-novations that are not commercialized, but implemented or their value-adding potential. These
types could be internal or external administrative processes that signicantly aect operational
perormance. Innovation is not just a bright idea. It involves doing something with ideas or
concepts that add value to your organization.
The innovation process does begin with ideas. Heres an example o what it takes to develop a
successul product. G. A. Stevens and J. Burley5 provide us with a success curve o how many
raw ideas are required or a successul product. The statistics are not too encouraging. Their
study shows the ollowing progression rom raw ideas (unwritten) to product successes:
Raw Ideas (Unwritten) 3,000
Ideas Submitted 300
Small Projects 125
Signicant Developments 9
Major Developments 4
Launches 1.7
Successes 1
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
8/80
8
Keep these gures in perspective. Unwritten ideas are basically useless. Someone must take
the time to mull over an idea, turn it upside-down, inside-out, and put the idea down on paper.
I it cant be written down and explained, chances are its not o any value. I it cant be written
down, its not likely to be understood. Someone must identiy the kernel o the idea. Thats
where the work begins.
Invention
Idea generation comes beore invention. We dont know much about how ideas occur. As an
example, why did the inventor o 3Ms Post-it! notes come up with the idea when he did? He
sang in the choir or many years and kept losing those little pieces o paper that marked the
pages in his hymnal. Logic would suggest he would have thought about it at an earlier date.
Ater all, he worked at 3M or many years, and adhesion is one o its core competencies. Some
series o events must have triggered the idea. We just dont understand the process. I we
did, we would have already resolved many o todays technological limitations.
So, innovation includes invention, and invention begins with a new idea something new. Its
characterized by creating something which did not previously exist. It may reer to a product,
process, service, or some combination o concepts not previously revealed. Inventions span
the continuum rom very simple to very complex. However, not all inventions are commercial-
ized. A patent issued or something new may or may not be o value. It may or may not be
commercialized.
Xeroxs Palo Alto Laboratory provides an excellent example o invention without any commer-
cialization. This center o research invented, and the company ignored, the rst personal com-
puter, the rst graphics-oriented monitor, the rst hand-held mouse, the rst processing pro-
gram or non-expert use, the rst local area network, and the rst laser printer. Xerox did not
commercialize any o these inventions. Management invested in research without recognizing
the signicance o the demonstrated results. These inventions generated new businesses and
in some cases industries, but not or Xerox. Others commercialized the inventions.
Creativity
Invention and innovation involve creativity. They require thinking about the possible, about what
could be, about doing things dierently, about putting together dierent combinations o what
is already known, and then having the ability to put it all together. Invention and innovation
involve some level o dissatisaction with the status quo. Creativity has little to do with educa-
tional credentials or knowledge. To a great extent, it depends on a mindset and some innate
personal characteristics not just promoting change, but accepting it.
A undamental paradox is associated with creativity. While engineers talk about the lack o cre-
ativity, we really only want so much o it and in such a way that it really doesnt disturb ourstatus quo. We also ail to do the necessary homework to adequately propose an idea that may
be outside the domain o the organizations purview.
Employers want creativity, but are they willing to tolerate the idiosyncrasies o creative people
those who continually search or new opportunities who are sometimes a breed apart?
Are the creators willing to do the up-ront work to convince doubters and naysayers? Are all
o us willing to promote creativity and live with its uncertainties? Creativity is not done by the
numbers. It requires thinking and doing and thinking and doing more, until the expected result
is achieved. Its hard work.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
9/80
Types o innovation
There appears to be general agreement on at least two types o innovation incremental and
radical. Incremental includes the nuts and bolts what we can expect ater a product comes
to the marketplace solid improvements related to product quality, general operation, and
added capabilities. Radical innovations create new industries. Computers (both hardware andsotware) and copying are examples o innovations that developed into new industries. And
telecommunications may be considered a radical innovation in the uture.
However, this classication may be too simple. Figure 1
is a matrix that allows us to determine just what kind
o innovation is under consideration. The horizontal axis
covers the range o innovations rom components to
macro systems. The vertical axis shows us the range
rom incremental to discontinuous.
The horizontal axis includes components, assemblies,
products/processes/ platorms, systems, and macrosystems:
Components all components in any engineering
discipline electrical, electronic, mechanical, etc.
Assemblies congurations o components assembled
in some orm to perorm a particular unction or group o unctions
Products, Processes, and Platorms a classication:
1. Product, process, and platorm improvements improvements o all types to existing
products, processes, and technology platorms
2. Me-too products, processes, and platorms just trying to get a piece o the businesspie. Meets or slightly exceeds current oerings
3. New-to-the-market products, processes, and platorms no product on the market
accomplishes the same task great opportunity
4. Breakthrough products, processes, and platorms new-to-the-market but develop into
a new industry
As we traverse the axis rom components to macro systems, we begin to see the role that
product and process platorms play in providing new opportunities. Those platorms that allow
us not only to capitalize on prior product innovations, but also to expand the scope o opportuni-
ties. We have good examples in products like 3Ms Post-it Notes, Sonys Walkman, and Black
and Decker power tools.
Systems and macro systems the system level might encompass introducing a product that
includes not only the product, but also takes into consideration the user, location, ease o opera-
tion, maintenance, and disposal. A macro system might include the Chunnel, which connects
Great Britain and France, requiring not only technical innovation, but also innovation in manag-
ing political, cultural, and international issues. NASAs programs would generally all into the
macro system category. Organizations may choose to eliminate the macro system category,
since it doesnt apply to most business applications. Scope, size, investment, and complexity
are distinguishing characteristics. System classication must occur within the organizations
business context.
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
Figure 1
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
10/80
10
The vertical axis elements o Figure 1 require some clarication, since there is little agreement
as to how this increased complexity might be designated. Yet, it is important to recognize just
where an innovation might t on a continuum rom incremental to discontinuous.
The lines o demarcation on the vertical axis o Figure 1 grow uzzier as we progress rom com-
ponents to macro systems. There is probably no right or wrong classication. The importantmessage is that organizations develop a classication system, so they understand the segment
they are working in. Dierent elements require a dierent set o resources and organizational
inrastructure.
Here are some general distinctions between the dierent types o innovation:
Incremental innovation enhances existing products, processes, and services not lim-
ited to technology, but includes all related business unctions. Ater the initial introduction
o the rst product, examples would include the many versions o the Walkman and Post-it
Notes. This category is, by ar, the dominant one.
Architectural innovation recongures the system o components that constitute a
product or process. Design components are linked together in a new way, using many coredesign concepts in a new architecture. Architectural innovation requires knowledge about
the components and how they are linked. Examples include the transistor as a replacement
or the vacuum tube, introduction o passenger aircrat, material substitutions, and rear-
rangement o mechanical components to perorm a unction more eciently.
Radical innovation no consistent description in literature or rom organizations. For our
purposes, introduces a new product or service that develops into a new industry. Introduc-
tion o computers and copying systems are examples others include new production
processes or opening up new markets.
Discontinuous innovation basically makes an organizations core competencies use-
less by introducing a totally new product or process platorm over time it eliminates a
complete industry rom the horse and buggy to the automobile; candles and gas lightsto the electric light bulb; typewriters to word processors; and the slide rule to the electronic
calculator to computer-aided-engineering. Discontinuous innovations not only make engi-
neers, technologies, and processes obsolete, but also can create havoc with other business
unctions, such as marketing and sales, nance, and other unctionally dominated groups.
What Are the Sources o Innovation?
Much misinormation exists regarding sources o innovation. Personal experience shows that
no one source exists or dominates. I one could, it would probably be the technical community.
Realistically, the ideas or concepts that eventually result in an innovation can come rom any
source, either internal or external.
Internal sources
The internal possibilities span all organizational unctions and their people. Suggestions that
become realized innovations come rom scientists, engineers, marketing and sales personnel,
people working in communications, and occasionally, rom high-level executives. In short, any
person can be the source o an innovation or a trigger or another observant person. Certain
sources push peoples buttons, and their thinking mechanisms go into overdrive.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
11/80
1
External sources
External contacts also provide a valuable source, but are too oten disregarded customers,
users, suppliers, academics, government, and unrelated business associates. Some academic
research claims that customers are the main sources o innovation.
Innovation involves invention plus commercialization, and users seldom participate in the com-
mercialization process. Innovation involves more than thinking up the idea, it also involves
doing. Even i a user makes a mockup, translating the mockup to a commercially viable product
includes competencies that the originator does not usually possess.
Observation
Other sources o innovation are what we read and what we observe. Most innovators have
breadth o knowledge and are good inormation synthesizers. Organizations have many people
who can analyze the most complex problems, but usually only rom one perspective. A poten-
tial innovation could be analyzed rom a technological, marketing, business, or environmental
perspective by the most competent in their elds. But, innovation requires the synthesis o thisinormation to reach a conclusion. Managing the tradeos could look like a gut reaction, but
because o their breadth o interest, innovators have knowledge that goes beyond the ormal
analysis.
Size dependency
Innovation sources also depend on organization size. In start-up organizations, the owners or
principal members will most likely be the sources. Their ideas were probably what developed
the start-up organizations.
Multi-product organizations, with division-type organizational structures, will most likely depend
on knowledge o their own sources. But they could miss new opportunities, i they dont gooutside the bounds o their known technologies and markets. Stick to your knittingis oten
touted as a business strategy. However, there comes a time when your knitting no longer has
customer acceptance.
In an essentially single product company, or where products are built on a common platorm,
the innovation may be more restrictive. While innovation sources are unlimited, innovation is a
multistage process that ocuses attention on the problem nder the person who visualizes
combinations that can be integrated into a marketable new concept.
The Process or Innovation
An innovators lie would be much easier i there were seven easy steps to successul product
innovation. Some generic guidelines exist, but no specics or step-by-step process. Academic
literature generally provides a linear approach to this somewhat undisciplined and uncontrolled
process we call innovation.
E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fuseld6 in, Generating Technological Innovation, suggest six stages o
the innovation process:
Pre-project
Project possibilities
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
12/80
12
Project initiation
Project execution
Project outcome and evaluation
Project transer
This model is presented as a linear progression rom stage to stage. The authors note that
these stages oten overlap and recycle. I question the validity o such a process or the practi-
tioner, even though it is oten repeated in many dierent orms in the academic and business
press.
This particular model gives the impression that innovation is a ormalized process that goes
through a series o steps, stage gates, and evaluations. We might use this model ater an indi-
vidual or a small group has done the preliminary work, by identiying some new opportunity or
innovation.
And, it may be applicable ater the concepts have been developed (technology and markets)
and project possibilities evaluated, but not at the two preliminary stages o pre-project and
project possibilities. Ater the up-ront work is completed, straightorward project management
principles apply. At that time, the objective is to bring the product to market.
The pre-project stage
Just how does the innovation process begin? Does it come rom the top-down, bottom-up, or
just where does it originate? Does it come rom the individual or the team?
The pre-project stage o this model is the only stage that diers rom the normal process o
project management. It consumes an individual or small group, and involves the identica-
tion o the problem or opportunity. Normally, it doesnt surace as a Eureka!, or rom a bolt o
lightning. Its hard work, requiring thought and inormation synthesis rom many sources and
disciplines, plus using creative capability to describe and communicate the concept. We arenot talking solely o the idea, but o innovation, which includes all the activities in the concept to
commercialization or implementation cycle.
Identiying the problems or opportunities is associated with dierent business unctions at
many dierent organizational levels that include:
New business opportunities
New products
New processes
New technologies
New markets
Improvements to existing products, processes, and systems
Organizational opportunities
Opportunities with customers and suppliers
This pre-project stage in the innovation process is where creativity in integrating inormation
and knowledge rom many sources takes place. Its messy. Its rustrating. Its oten discour-
aging. There are no rules to ollow.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
13/80
1
As J.B. Quinn7 has noted, this part o the innovation process is controlled chaos not chaos
within the organization, but chaos in the innovators mind. The organization isnt even ready to
understand what the innovators thinking about.
What Are the Organizational Requirements?Discussing innovation in the abstract does not provide much guidance or insight into the com-
plexities involved in its practice. Innovation does not unction in an organizational vacuum. It
requires organizational resources and a supportive organizational inrastructure to accomplish
some preconceived list o activities. Too oten, we think o resources as including people and
money only.
Resources also include:
Critical mass o people Input rom customers
Use o intellectual property Input rom suppliers
Access to inormation
Adequate plant and equipment
Competence in technologies Necessary operational acilities
Time Sucient nancial reserves
Organizational inrastructure includes:
Purposes or which the organization exists
Objectives, both short- and long-term
Strategies to accomplish the purposes and objectives
Organizational structure
Guiding philosophy, principles, policies, and practices
Management support or innovation
Management breadth and expertise
Attitudes or acceptance o risk
Methods and modes o communication
Organizational activities include eight broad categories. They interact with the resources and
inrastructure components. These classes o activities provide a reerence point and can span a
continuum that embodies every business activity and unction. They can also be classied into
many sub-categories. The resources and inrastructure will be applied dierently to dierent
types o activities.
Activities include:
Business Functional Integration
Products Eectiveness and eciency
Processes Support sta
Inormation systems External
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
14/80
14
The relation o resources to inrastructure, and to activities
is shown in Figure 2. The goal here is to reach a 1. 1. 1.
condition. This gure represents the ideal, where the 1s
represent the availability o the necessary resources, a
supportive inrastructure that meets the requirements orthe particular activity or project, and a well-dened activity
or project. We seldom approach the ideal, but its essential
to know where we are beore we begin.
Beware o the inrastructure
Here are a ew examples o how organizational
inrastructure militates against innovation:8
I the inrastructure is rigid, avoids risk, or cant deal with uncertainties, innovation is
either an up-hill ght or has no chance o succeeding.
I the potential innovation does not link the purposes, objectives, and strategic directiono the organization, chances o success are very low.
I the inrastructure does not support innovation, it may be necessary to resurrect the
resum not much chance or success.
I the required intellectual property and inormation are not available, its just one more
obstacle to ace.
I command and control mentality obstructs the channels o communication, orget it.
I organizations hype programs like quality, continuous improvement, and team building
without substantive and realistic objectives, innovation cannot fourish.
I the human resources principles are words rather than reality, innovation will not
survive.
Figure 2 allows us to look at the key concerns in an organization and determine whether the
eort adds value.
Integration o products, markets, and technologies
Innovation involves the integration o products, markets, and technologies. This conclusion
may appear obvious, but the integration seldom occurs. Apparently, it is easier to suer the
negative results o not integrating, than taking the time to integrate. New products generally
require new technologies; new products oten depend on new markets or market segments.
New technologies without product or market applications provide no benet. New products
without new technologies will not survive in the marketplace. Products without market accep-
tance, regardless o technological advances and their internally perceived benets, consumeresources without providing any added value.
Product innovation involves bringing together the market and technology input very early in the
process. Assume you had the brilliant idea o developing a light bulb that would never burn out
not just an incremental improvement but 1,000 or more times the lie o a current light
bulb. How much eort would you expend beore looking at the market limitations?
Think o the implications or such a product. You could expend a great deal o technical eort
and ail in the marketplace. In this case, theres no doubt that the technology issues are signi-
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
Figure 2
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
15/80
1
cant, i not unsolvable. Think o the consequences o bringing such a product to market and its
social implications.
The product, market, technology matrix
Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between products,markets, and technologies, the three major components
o the innovation process. Progressing rom current to new,
along any one axis, increases the uncertainty and the risk
o ailure. Progressing along each axis rom current to new
increases the uncertainty and risk signicantly. Playing on
the innovation eld requires not just accepting the risk, but
understanding how much risk an organization can sustain on
each axis. The critical mass o resources and inrastructure,
as noted in Figure 2, are essential.
As an example on the technology axis: while moving rom
current to new on any one axis may not cause signicantdiculties, scaling a second axis simultaneously, such as
markets, adds additional risk and complexity that we must evaluate careully.
As shown in Figure 3, introducing new products with new technologies into new markets pres-
ents the greatest challenges to management. But, this is what product innovation is all about.
Little, i any, innovation is possible with current technologies and current products working in a
current market position.
New technologies usually require new skills to operate and maintain them, oten disrupt current
systems o operation, place extra burdens on the user, and seldom do just exactly what was
originally intended. Usually, we dont need all the bells and whistles particularly true o many
sotware products.
Who Are the Innovators?
Research does not clearly identiy the characteristics o potential innovators. Anecdotal evi-
dence, common sense, some inconclusive research, and my own career experiences in one o
the worlds most innovative companies, show that innovators possess certain common traits:
Creativity not the literary or technology kind, although both are useul. More like, creativity
in being able to synthesize inormation rom a broad perspective that is gained rom a sense o
curiosity and observation. Creativity that involves both problem nding and problem solving.
Or, competence in exploiting opportunities the condence o the constructive maverick.
Problem nders and solvers engineers place a great deal o emphasis on problem solving.I suggest that innovation requires engineers to rst become problem nders and then prob-
lem solvers. Innovators are not passive bystanders waiting or the next assignment. They are
proactive, orward-thinkers who go about bringing new products, processes, and technologies
to market.
Broad interests why the need? Innovation is generally multidisciplinary. It usually involves
at least a system in its application the product or process, the customers, the users, suppli-
ers, etc. Always keep in mind that innovation involves the marketplace. The innovator must be
sensitive to what the marketplace is looking or, or what it needs, to be more eective.
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
Figure 3
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
16/80
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
17/80
1
8. Opportunities or innovation do not come in artully packaged and beribboned boxes sit-
ting on your desk on Monday morning. Find opportunities and then make them happen.
Use your personal search engine.
9. Successul innovation requires adequate resources and a supportive inrastructure.
Become a diplomat to make that inrastructure work or you.10. Identiy new opportunities. They surround us, i we only pause or a moment to think
about them. As engineers, i we look or opportunities related to eectiveness,
eciency, and the economic use o resources in our daily activities, we can make
signicantly greater contributions to the well-being o our organizations and society.
Are you ready?
Now is the time to start. Youve been exposed to the undamentals. You need to link the
concepts identied in Figures 1, 2, and 3. You know what it takes to be an innovator. You know
the required characteristics to be successul. Innovation is not or every engineer. At the very
least, you must be a creative and contributing maverick. That takes a lot o courage, even with
all your competencies.
But, no guts, no glory. I you persevere in the ace o certain hardships youll come up a winner.
Put your heart and soul into it. I you have what it takes, youll have a rewarding, satisying, and
exciting career!
Bibliography
1Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1973, pp. 782-803.
2Andrew H. Van de Ven, Central Problems in the Management o Innovation, Management Science, May 1986, Vol. 32, No. 5.
3Frederick Betz, Managing Technology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1987, p. 6.
4Unknown source.
5G. A. Stevens and J. Burley, 3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success, Research Technology Management, May - June 1997,
Volume 40, No. 3, pp. 16 - 27.
6E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fuseld, Generating Technological Innovation, Sloan Management Review, 1981, Vol. 22, No. 3.
7J. B. Quinn, Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos, Harvard Business Review, May-June 1985, pp.73-84.
8A. B. Shani and C. F. Sexton, Myths and Misconceptions about the Dynamics o Innovation, National Productivity Review, Winter
1990/91, pp. 75-84.
Gus Gaynor was the frst and ormer Editor-in-Chie or IEEE-USA Todays Engineer printmagazine.
InnOvaTIOn: WhaT EnGInEErS nEEd TO KnOW
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
18/80
18 Best Practices in Innovation
Learning From Others Experiences
We really dont know much about product and process innovation how it begins, what
prompts it, and who originates it. We do know that a specic environment is essential topromote it. All organizations need it, and it generally comes rom engineers and their support
stas.
An innovation is not an idea. It requires invention plus implementation. The invention, usually a
combination o known principles and technologies combined in a new and oten unique archi-
tecture, meets some specic needs or wants.
Innovations come in all sizes and shapes and embrace all the engineering disciplines. It is di-
cult to nd an innovation that is limited to a single discipline or technology. Some people may
be idea generators but it takes implementation skills to bring those ideas to the marketplace.
We do know rom the history o innovative organizations that the innovation process requires a
commitment rom management and rom its engineers:
From management
Understanding o the innovation process
Tolerance or exploration and controlled ailure
Freedom to act without encumbering policies and procedures
A reward system with incentives based on results
Commitment to provide adequate resources
The ability to listen
A sponsor willing to take risks
From engineers
Technical and nontechnical competence
Strong work ethic with mental and operational discipline
Problem-nding and -solving competence
Sel-motivated behavior
Maturity to ignore organizational indierence or resistance
Passion to pursue a concept to a conclusion
Developed powers o observation and synthesis
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
19/80
1Top 10 Innovation Tools or New Millennium Engineers
By Tom Briscoe
YawnMower Cuts through material others nd boring and bags the essence o newideas.
NeuroHoover Sucks up pieces o inormation, knowledge, and acts, then lters and
stores them neatly in your brain.
RiskDrive Spurs you to be creative, even i the status quo would be saer.
DomiNotator Tumbles out next steps onto paper, based on the research and work
or others.
GroupCeiver Tunes your colleagues into the same wavelength by synchronizing yourstrategic direction.
TeamSmitter Distills and sends common goals and plans (use with a GroupCeiver).
WarmTenna Picks up bits o genius and incubates them, until they can take on a lie
o their own.
NeoCycle Exercises your brain; best ridden in a blue sky environment
HamCorder Stores just the meat o your best ideas.
And the number-one innovation tool or new millennium engineers:
NilliScope Helps you shoot at something no one else can see...and hit it.
Tom Briscoe, a project manager at Campbell Scientifc, Inc., writes about practical management
issues or engineers. ([email protected])
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
20/80
20 Roundtable Discussion Engineers On Innovation:
A View From The Roundtable
By Sean Lockhead
The Participants:
John Allen, senior mechanical engineer, with Outokumpu American Brass, Bualo,
New York. A graduate o the University o Toledo, Allen has been in the copper and
brass industry or 15 years, mainly on the foor as a maintenance engineer, and has
recently been getting into project work.
Kevin Diehl, electrical sales engineer, Kaman Industrial Technologies, Rochester,
New York. Diehl has worked in sales and distribution or the past 11 years inside
sales, outside sales, and electrical sales. He and his associates look at ways to take
automation to the next level.
Dr. Colin Drury, proessor o industrial engineering, State University o New York,
Bualo, New York. Beore joining the SUNY-Bualo aculty, Dr. Drury was managero ergonomics at Pilkington Glass. He has been involved with human actors engi-
neering and ergonomics, much o it concerned with quality control.
Don Roland, vice president and regional manager, Kaman Industrial Technologies,
Tonawanda, New York. Starting in the warehouse, Roland has gone through all the
steps o the organization: inside sales; purchasing; outside sales; branch, district,
and regional management.
Todays Engineer: (TE)The dictionary denes innovation as the act o introducing
something new. How would you dene innovation?
Allen: Its being open-minded. Something new is not necessarily something completely
new. It is taking technology rom one area and applying it to something totally dierent. For
example, a ceramic bearing that is used in the aircrat industry is used on a welder head simply
because its nonconductive. Thats innovative. The one problem I have, a gray area, is the
division between what is innovation and what is technological advancement.
Drury: Innovation is doing something dierent, maybe not necessarily new, but it must be
useul. You can do something new and have it be a complete waste o time. You need some
ocus in innovation. I see innovation in products and processes, and in how humans interace
with either the production equipment or the product.
Diehl: When I think o innovation, I think o someone looking at a problem or puzzle and
trying to decide the best way to attack it. It may be an opportunity to take a completely
dierent route to arrive at a solution.
Roland: I would agree with what John [Allen] was talking about here. Its hard or me to
distinguish between innovation and creativity or technological advance. There are things that
are viewed today as innovative, yet they have been around or years. To Colins [Drury] point,
maybe it didnt have a useul purpose at the time, or people were not ready or it.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
21/80
2
TE:What are the traditional methods or developing new ideas and new products?
Drury: The traditional method has been that someone has an idea, someone comes up with a
product, and [someone] nds a market. Its a mixture o that and a market needs analysis or a
product. Its a mix between bottom-up and determining customer needs and addressing them.
Allen: Yes, basically I see the same thing: concept, design, testing, development, and
production.
Diehl: I think coming up with ideas on how to do things and committing them to paper is the
rst step. Next, the ideas need to be developed. There may be a need to incorporate the
market needs and market assessment.
TE: How are these methods changing and at what rate?
Diehl: You have to look at the market-driven hunger or something better. You have to get peo-
ple to perceive your product as cutting edge. You see more and more o just getting product
out get it on the shelves and worry about the bugs and problems later. These xes possiblybecome the next generation o the product.
Allen: I see prototyping. I still see the same thought process though. You now have tools like
nite element analysis. You can now test that model to a breaking point without building a
physical part. I see the steps as being the same, but we have used technology to accelerate it.
Roland: I agree. The acceleration time has greatly increased. For example, I was just over at a
shop where they produce molds. The old way was to carve them by hand. What they do now
is create a CAD drawing and use it to make a CNC program or automatically producing the
molds and holding better tolerances.
I see that rapid development is taking place; however, there is a cost to that in terms o
embracing the changes, knowing that more changes are right around the corner. When do youmake the decision to make the next change?
Drury: I know what you mean. We use rapid prototyping extensively in human actors
engineering to model the whole process.
Roland: Maybe theres not enough ocus on existing products. It might be more practical or
industry to take a look at improving existing products with new technologies.
TE: We touched on simulation. How much o an impact is simulation having in terms o
innovation?
Allen: From a manuacturing standpoint, the motto is aster, cheaper, better. You are constantlychallenged to do that. Computers are becoming the mainstay o an engineer.
Roland: Ill go back to that mold manuacturer. In the past, it would cost in excess o $40,000
over 8 weeks. They can now do it in a week or less or around $16,000. So there are benets
in many areas.
Allen: I dont know too many people that would totally trust a computer model. When youre
all done with it, you still need to perorm some o the physical tests.
Roland: Whats the part you dont trust?
rOundTaBlE dISCuSSIOn EnGInEErS On InnOvaTIOn: a vI EW frOm ThE rOundTaBlE
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
22/80
22
Allen: Id have to say its because theres always that uncertainty. When you create a model,
you make assumptions. This leads to uncertainty. The real thing tells you the real picture.
TE: What role does project management play in creating the reedom and fexibility to
become innovative?
Allen: Project management has in recent years become a eld o its own. In the old days,
you used to have just a project engineer that did everything. Project management is more o a
team concept. It has become a must.
Drury: I think engineers have embraced management in the sense that management has got
something to tell you about how to run a system with multiple people in it. To some extent we
can create procedures or this design process. That makes it easier to get rid o some o the
mechanics o it.
Roland: This team concept and using project management is the more eective way o doing
things. There are two things that you have to make sure o though: rst, that the project man-
ager is truly empowered to garner the resources, and second, that the people are told to reactin a timely manner to what needs to be done.
Diehl: You can also look at the innovation that is introduced by having the right players working
on the team.
TE: What kinds o restrictions are ound in a highly structured environment as opposed
to a ree-thinking model?
Drury: Restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. They keep people ocused. I you keep it
too restrictive, then you just dont get innovation. You have to nd that balance between the
two.
Allen: The people that are more o the ree-thinkers are the higher risk-takers. They give you a
little more reedom to try out dierent things; whereas in a structured organization, everything
has to be approved throughout the hierarchy.
Roland: I guess I can see the same thing rom a management perspective. I would want some
history o eectiveness. As I get a eeling o some success in what theyve done, I might
loosen up on some o that.
Diehl: I agree. You need to have structure to identiy the goal and give direction. However, you
cant have it be too highly structured. You end up eliminating innovation.
TE: You mentioned the team concept. What are the pros and cons o the team approach?
Allen: You get a group o people in a room and someone may start o the conversation. Then
you will get eedback and someone else will jump in with some more thoughts. When you get
that critical mass going, you can do amazing things.
Roland: The style o the project manager is very important to the eectiveness o the group.
Its a talent to know when to stand back and let people run with ideas and when to step in and
say were in let eld here. I dont think enough time is spent training people on how to handle
those group dynamics.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
23/80
2
Allen: Sometimes there are personality conficts. It goes back to the project manager and
[that persons] ability to acilitate the process. The project manager role is something thats not
understood very well.
Diehl: You are in there with many people trying to go ater innovative ideas. You have people
whose egos need to be stroked. People need to have recognition o what they have brought tothe meeting.
TE: How much o the new style o innovation depends on the use o interdisciplinary
teams?
Allen: I think its a must.
Roland: Even though you may not have ormally dened it as a team, it exists. Im still going to
go to other sources, in an inormal team atmosphere. So, is anybody really operating outside o
a team?
Allen: Most o the experience that Ive had on it has been project teams. The newest type operson we include is an accountant. The perspective that an accountant brings is much dier-
ent rom what anyone else can. I think its good to bring together all the dierent disciplines
that you can think o to work together on that project. It generates more ideas. The more
ideas generated, the better that team perorms.
Diehl: Teams are a driven necessity. Everyones doing more with less. It also helps other
people in what they are trying to do.
Roland: I agree but I dont think they do enough o it. Industry, itsel, tends to do things in
silos. People are charged with budgets and interdepartmental constraints. Too oten they look
at things that they need to solve within their own area without knowing the whole picture.
Drury: People are generally concerned with just making their own areas better.
TE: What are some o the key nontechnical attributes needed to be successul in this
environment?
Roland: It comes down to communication skills. Engineers must be salespeople too. An
engineer can have all the technical knowledge, but without being able to communicate the
ideas, its worth nothing.
Drury: To be air, it has been changing. However, or example, students sometimes view
some classes as just another class with a presentation at the end. They dont comprehend the
impact o what theyre learning.
Allen: I think some o the things start to cross into human resources. For example, how do
you deal with conficts?
Diehl: How are we doing with having industry work with schools to give them that perspec-
tive?
Roland: I think that is one area where weve actually improved. Its much better than it was
10 years ago.
Drury: This idea o teamwork and innovation has brought it all into ocus. No longer are you
just sitting around in your little Dilbert cubicle.
rOundTaBlE dISCuSSIOn EnGInEErS On InnOvaTIOn: a vI EW frOm ThE rOundTaBlE
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
24/80
24
Roland: I would also say business nance is extremely important.
Drury: What we really try to do is teach students how to be engineering managers.
TE: In conclusion, what do you see happening in the area o innovative ideas, methods,or processes in the near- and long-term uture?
Roland: I think people are becoming more aware o ways and methods o working towards so-
lutions. They are starting to understand more about it. These are not new techniques: project
management, team-building, and communication. I just think there is a better appreciation. Its
also a matter o harnessing whats out there.
Diehl: You really try to look at where we got many o the ideas we already have. I see the use
o the Internet or many applications, including machine and plant monitoring. There are some
places where it is being used now. There are some plants that are bringing it down to a level
where they can utilize it without high capital expenditure.
Drury: My worry about this is that engineering innovation is something that we do in our jobs,but have we had any real new social structures? Have we had any real economic innovations?
We live in this world driven by economics and politics. We read about wars and economic
meltdowns and such. Can we do anything about that? There have been some innovations, but
Im not sure it was by product teams looking or the good o the world.
Allen: I do have some concern. We have now gotten ourselves, because o innovation and
technological advancements, almost to the point o instant gratication. We want it now. We
expect it now. We are getting it now. I see some management philosophies taking this way
beyond where it should have gone.
Some o those philosophies say ail ast, fx it, race on. As an engineer, you should have your
head in a wastebasket, throwing up over that philosophy.
Roland: Its fre, ready, aim.
Allen: Yes. We have to think things through more thoroughly. Were supposed to have our
minds boggled every day. Move ast, but do it cautiously. Do it wisely.
Sean Lockhead is a product support group manager at Kaman Industrial Technologies.
rOundTaBlE dISCuSSIOn EnGInEErS On InnOvaTIOn: a vI EW frOm ThE rOundTaBlE
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
25/80
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
26/80
26
Whaddaya Know?
Equally detrimental to innovation is the simple ailure to keep current in our technical knowl-
edge. This orm o NIH means we dont even realize were rejecting others developments,
since we dont realize they exist! I you hear yoursel saying (or thinking) that you dont have
time to read technical journals or books, youll all prey (i you havent already) to this variationo NIH.
Technical careers are particularly demanding in their requirement or constant learning. I you
believe you learned everything youll ever need or engineering in engineering school, youll
surely ail at the innovation aspect o your job. Although many companies oer their technical
employees seminars and tuition reimbursements or the purpose o keeping them abreast
o new technology, we each must accept personal responsibility or keeping our own skills
current.
Its the Economics
To recognize other sources o NIH, we must understand the economics behind innovation. Ingeneral, ever-increasing eciencies in industry are the result o a deepening capital structure
and increasing specialization. An excellent example is ood: at one time each household grew
and processed all the ood it required, but now we have dierent suppliers who grow the
oodstus, who process and package them, who manuacture the packaging machines and
materials, and so on. Such ever-increasing specialization is the commitment o each persons
labor to what they do best, resulting in ever-increasing eciencies manuacture the packaging
machines and materials, and so on. Such ever-increasing specialization is the commitment o
each persons labor to what they do best, resulting in ever-increasing eciencies.
Failures in the evolution o the capital structure can thwart eorts at innovation by making NIH
unavoidable. One breakdown o this specialization process is internally designed proprietary
technology. In the past, manuacturers commonly developed and built their own equipment,and such equipment usually became a closely guarded trade secret. In the days when engi-
neers literally invented whole processes, and the machines that made the processes possible,
this strategy made perect sense. But as other manuacturers became specialists in machine
design and construction, the technology users lost their edge in expertise -- which is why ew
companies build their own equipment anymore.
Yet, habits die hard. Some organizations nd it dicult to accept that they no longer lead in
technology they originally developed. Many cases still remain where internally designed and
constructed technology is the best and most ecient answer. But such programs should be
reviewed and evaluated rom time to time, objectively and unemotionally, i innovation is to
continue.
Sotware as Capital
NIH can be particularly prevalent in industries where the capital structure simply hasnt evolved.
Sotware engineering is an excellent example. Since it remains such a new eld, and the mar-
ket is complicated by the act that its creations are not tangible in the way manuactured goods
are, its capital structure is undeveloped.
Dr. Howard Baetjer, Jr., adjunct proessor o economics at George Mason University in Fairax,
Virginia, addressed this phenomenon in his recent book, Sotware as Capital: An Economic Per-
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
27/80
2
spective on Sotware Engineering. He points out that sotware development is most dierent
rom the development o hard tools that where sotware engineering is arthest behind
other engineering disciplines and has the greatest potential to improve, is in its division o
knowledge. By other industries standards, the sotware industry has astonishingly little
division o knowledge and specialization.
It is true that increasing sotware reuse within particular rms is boosting productivity signi-
cantly, improving time to market, and the quality, maintainability, and range o products oered.
Yet, those productivity gains are only the embryo o the benets possible rom sotware reuse
across rms. In other industries, the various parts and subparts and sub-subparts o almost
every product are built by specialist producers in a very lengthy chain what economists call
an extended structure o production. But in the sotware industry, most developers build most
o the elements o their systems or themselves.
This means that NIH is simply the norm in much o the sotware engineering world today.
Obviously, we cant individually institute an evolved capital structure where none now exists.
But there are individual and organizational eorts that are taking important rst steps toward
deepening the capital structure in the sotware world, such as the development o patternlanguages and reusable components. Taking an active role serves the dual purpose o maximiz-
ing current innovation eorts, while simultaneously making uture innovation easier and more
productive thus minimizing what would otherwise be a natural, wholesale NIH eect in
sotware design.
These examples illustrate that anything that hinders our discovering, adapting, and using the
inventions o others to maximize our own ends rightully belongs in the NIH category. An
important part o engineers innovation eorts is the objective, and requent, evaluation o our
organizations and ourselves, to root out these tendencies. The more we ree ourselves o the
pernicious eects NIH has on innovation, the more eective well be.
Jim Vinoski is the systems improvement engineer or Yoplait-Colombo (a division o General
Mills) in Reed City, Michigan. ([email protected])
nOT InvEnTEd hErE
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
28/80
28 Keep Their Clothes On...and More
How to give better presentations, plus substance over style
and innovating like an entrepreneurby B. Michael Aucoin
So youve tried imagining the audience in their underwear during your presentation. All thatdid was make you sick, and it didnt help your delivery.Perhaps a better approach might be to engage your audience in a conversation, says Tony Jeary
in Establishing the Proper Tone Ensures Speaking Success (Presentations, November 1998).
Tone is mostly about how an audience perceives you, which is a key to success or ailure as a
presenter, notes Jeary.
Most business presentations are given as lectures, which makes most people dread attending
presentations almost as much as delivering them. On the other hand, nearly everyone enjoys a
conversation. To succeed, establish a conversational tone, and do it in the rst ew minutes o
your talk. Jeary oers some tips:
Talk with, not at, your audience. Use conversational language and avoid large words.
Involve the audience. Ask questions, and listen to the answers.
Dont stand behind a podium; mingle with the audience.
Use the names o participants, and encourage them to use yours.
Smile and use humor. Use personal anecdotes and stories.
Try this, and you can imagine receiving a hearty round o applause or a standing ovation with
your audience ully clothed, o course.
Innovation Is a WeedI you were to count on one hand the individuals most infuential in the digital revolution, youd
better include Bob Metcale. The inventor o Ethernet and ounder o 3Com holds court with
his insights on innovation in Invention is a Flower, Innovation is a Weed (MIT Technology Re-
view, November/December 1999). Metcale oers several lessons he learned on the process
o innovation, among them:
Selling matters. While inventing is romantic, innovation, the process o making a viable
business, is sometimes dirty work. It takes persistent selling to get people to buy into your
ideas.
Most corporate management initiatives ail because they lack integrity and an
underlying respect or people.
Dont listen to your customers. Rather, choose which customers to listen to. Develop
products they will need by the time you can deliver them, not necessarily what they want
right now.
Be an entrepreneur, not a visionary. Both have visions, but the entrepreneur has plans to
achieve those visions.
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
29/80
2
Dont Wear the Hat Without the Cattle
Considering Im a Texan, once I saw the title, I had to open the book: All Hat and No Cattle
(Perseus, 1999). Thats Texas talk or all style and no substance. Chris Turner takes on the
complacent corporate world o management by the numbers and supercial thinking to invite
her readers to shake up the workplace. She starts with a premise that most people can relateto, but ew executives would admit: Most corporate management initiatives ail because they
lack integrity and an underlying respect or people. They are predicated on an assumption that
an organization is mechanistic and can be driven rom the top. These initiatives squelch the
creative thinking organizations, need, and ultimately make everyone cynical.
To change and grow an organization, you have to disturb the organization out o its compla-
cency. To grow successully, the organization needs the creative thinking o all its members,
and that can only happen when change is not based on ear. One way to start is simply to give
people ree time and space to hang out and sel organize. Taylor suggests substantive change
is ound through embracing the words o Ralph Waldo Emerson:
I unsettle all things. No acts to me are sacred; none are proane. I simply experiment, anendless seeker with no path at my back.
Mike Aucoin is vice president o Emprend Inc. in College Station, TX. ([email protected])
KEEp ThEIr ClOThES On...and mOrE
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
30/80
30 Do Engineers Improve Lives?
It depends on the wisdom with which the ultimate
consumer uses the new technology the engineer
helped to create
by Doug Lamm
Do technological innovations really make people happier? It not, what is the broader purposeo an engineers work? For those who develop new medical technologies, the improve-ment o the quantity o lie seems a reasonable broader purpose. But medical technologies
represent a small raction o manuactured goods. What about those who develop batteries
that live longer? Or aster pick-and-place machines? Or low-vibration motors? Does innovation
really improve not just the quantity, but also the quality o our lives?
Today, technological innovation seems like a good thing. But 25 years ago, a great debate was
raging as to the benet, and even necessity, o technological innovation. The counterculture
was at its peak, American auto production was at its all-time low, and the personal computerhadnt been invented.
Two o the most proound thinkers on this problem were Stanord Economist Tibor Scitovsky
and Structural Engineer Samuel Florman. Both Florman and Scitovsky studied the interplay
between technology and human emotions, and both published their most infuential works in
1976. But there, the similarities ended. Scitovsky was generally anti-technology; Florman, pro-
technology. Scitovsky was an academic; Florman, a practitioner. Scitovskys arguments relied
on theory and statistics; Flormans, on literature and history.
Fine Line Between Comort and Boredom
Scitovskys thoughts were most ully developed in his book The Joyless Economy: The Psy-chology o Human Satisaction. For Scitovsky, joylessness in the economy derives rom the
inevitable tendency o economic activity to promote boredom. The argument that leads to this
conclusion begins with a consideration o the components o human satisaction.
The rst component o satisaction is pleasure. According to the well-documented ndings o
motivational psychologists, we eel most pleasure when engaged in activities that provide just
the right amount o novelty and stimulation. Too much stimulation, and we become anxious.
Too little, and we become bored. Play gol against a pro, and we become embarrassed. Play
gol against a beginner, and we become bored. Play gol with someone o our exact skill level,
and we experience optimal pleasure.
The second element o satisaction is comort. Whereas pleasure derives rom stimulation,
comort comes rom lack o stimulation. Comort is characterized as a state o complete
absence o problems; no discomort. The ully ed couch potato watching a late-night baseball
game the home team is guaranteed to win is experiencing a state o optimal comort.
Neither pleasure nor comort alone is sucient or satisaction. We need comort to recharge
our batteries so we can experience pleasure. We need pleasure to relieve the boredom o a
too-comortable existence. The secret o satisaction is in striking the right balance between
comort and pleasure.
Used with skill, products could serve as tools to help us solve problems to achieve optimal
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
31/80
3
comort, Scitovsky argues. Products could also help us undertake stimulating activities to
achieve optimal pleasure. But because many non-economic sources o stimulation (a good
conversation with a riend, or example) exist, we dont really need many products or stimula-
tion. As a result, most o our economic consumption is aimed at eliminating problems rather
than inducing stimulation.
Because the economy perorms best when consumption is high, our economy tends to over-
promote and overproduce problem-solving products. Opportunities or deriving pleasure rom
stimulating or challenging non-economic activities are crowded out by the tendency to over
satisy needs with the problem-solving products o the economy.
Because the balance between comort and pleasure is too heavily weighted toward comort,
we become bored (joyless) by technology. The optimal unctioning o our economic system
is at odds with the optimal unctioning o our personal satisaction system.
Take, or example, the satisaction associated with using a wood hand plane. To create a per-
ectly true edge by planing o ne shavings o wood with a sharp hand plane requires a great
deal o skill and concentration. But, once mastered, planing by hand is a highly stimulating andsatisying experience or a woodworker.
Our economic system, on the other hand, unctions optimally when the hand-plane manuac-
turer promotes greater consumption than is required or optimal satisaction. A good hand
plane costs only about $60 and lasts 50 or more years. Clearly, the market or hand planes
can grow tremendously i the manuacturer develops and successully promotes $150 power
planers with $10 blades that wear out and must be replaced every year. A trip to your local
hardware store will conrm that, even though the power planer is less engaging and less
pleasurable than the hand plane, power planers outnumber and outsell hand planes by a large
margin.
Repeat this basic process over the millions o problem-solving products o our economic
system and the end result is a world overcrowded with unstimulating stu, and with peoplewho have become bored because they have been persuaded to buy the stu.
Today, technological innovation seems like a good thing. But 25 years ago, a great
debate was raging as to the beneft, and even necessity, o technological innovation.
Pleasure-Producing Engineering Process
Florman counters these charges in The Existential Pleasures o Engineering. Our aection or
technology is subject to cycles, Florman reminds. In some ages, engineers are viewed as he-
roes; in others, as villains. Were Florman writing now, he would undoubtedly view our current
Internet age as a heroic time or engineers. But, writing at a time when engineering was under
attack, he reers to 1850-1950 as a Golden Age o Engineering.
Florman introduces a series o literary gems describing some o the many possibilities or plea-
sure created by the work o engineers. For instance, a quotation rom Ann Morrow Lindbergh
in Listen The Winddescribes how enclosure in a machine can evoke a sense o security:
This little cockpit o mine became extraordinarily pleasing to me, as much so as a urnished
study at home. Every corner, every crack, had signifcance. Every object meant some-
thing. Not only the tools I was working with, the transmitter and receiver, the key and the
antenna reel, but even the small irrelevant objects on the side o the uselage, the little
black hooded light, its ace now turned away rom me, the shining arm and knob o the
dO EnGInEErS ImprOvE lIvES?
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
32/80
32
second throttle, the bright switches and handles, the colored wires and copper pipes, all
gave me in a strange sense, as much pleasure as my amiliar books and pictures might at
home. The pleasure was perhaps not esthetic but came rom a sense o amiliarity, securi-
ty, and possession. I invested them with an emotional signifcance o their own, since they
had been through so much with me. How nice to be in your own little room, to pull yourbelongings around you, to draw in like a snail in his shell, to work!
And this quotation rom the Dutch novel, Roll Back The Sea, describes the excitement created
by the construction o a large dike:
The great oating cranes, dropping tons o sti clay into the splashing water with each
swing o the arm. Dozens o tugboats with the white bow waves. Creaking bucket
dredges; unwieldy barges; blowers spouting the white mass o sand through long pipes out
behind the dark clay dam; and the hundreds o polder workmen in their high muddy boots.
An atmosphere drawing boards and tide tables, o megaphones and jangling telephones, o
pitching lights in the darkness, o sweat and steam and rust and water, o the slick clay and
the wind. A dike in the making, the greatest dike that the world had ever seen built straight
through the sea water.
The main thrust o Flormans work, however, relates not to the pleasures experienced by users
or observers o technology, but rather the pleasures o the act o engineering itsel. Florman
views the act o engineering as something humans will always nd necessary and satisying.
In part, satisaction may come rom a certain aith that improvement on nature will be good or
the world. For instance, he quotes Paul Valery in Eupalinos:
Nature is ormed and the elements are separated; but something enjoins him (the en-
gineer) to consider this work as unfnished, and as requiring to be rehandled and set in
motion again or the more special satisaction o man. The masses o marble should not
remain lieless within the earth constituting a solid night, nor the cedars and cypress rest
content to come to their end by ame or by rot, when they can be changed into ragrantbeams and dazzling urniture.
But primarily, satisaction in engineering comes rom that special eeling o being immersed in
the act o solving problems, and thereby orgetting about our deepest worries.
Satisaction may come rom a certain aith that improvement on nature will be good
or the world.
Innovation Neither Good or Bad
Clear evidence contradicts the views o both Florman and Scitovsky. Consumers are not com-
pletely bored by products; rock-climbing equipment is selling well. And, the results o engi-
neering are oten not as pleasurable as the activity o engineering the intellectual stimulation
o the Manhattan project resulted in the tragedy o Hiroshima. But overall, the exceptions
seem minor compared with the general validity o both arguments.
How then is it possible to believe, at the same time, Flormans implication that innovation
makes us happier and Scitovskys implication that it doesnt?
Reconciliation o the great technology debate can be ound in the surprisingly similar ndings
o both authors: Innovation per se is neither good nor bad. Scitovsky writes, Advancing civi-
lization [i.e. advancing technology] would advance our happiness i our education or enjoying
leisure by putting it to good use increased in step with the increase in our leisure.
dO EnGInEErS ImprOvE lIvES?
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
33/80
3
Similarly, Florman writes, It will be claimed that the ancients were able to take delight in
their abricated objects because they were not boggled by them. The work o the carpenter,
the weaver, and the smith can readily be seen and understood. There is little mystery in the
technology o chariots and armor. The obvious answer to this is that people today would get
more pleasure out o the world i they understood more about science and technology. A goodeducation should include enough in these areas so that the ordinary citizen is not deprived o
his birthright, which includes savoring the engineering creations o his world.
In other words, both authors conclude that the good o engineering depends on the skill with
which consumers appreciate and use engineering works.
So, is your aster pick-and-place machine really making anyone happier? Scitovsky would prob-
ably say no, because its being used to create yet another gadget that will only increase the
boredom o the consumer. Florman would probably suggest it certainly makes the designer
happier and that it might make the operator happier.
But, or both authors, the breadth o the broader purpose o engineering is a unction pri-
marily o the wisdom with which the ultimate consumer uses the new technology that theengineer helped create. Both authors suggest that it is the development o wisdom regarding
the satisying use o technology, more than the development o new technologies themselves,
where the greatest innovations are required.
Doug Lamm is a product manager in 3M Corp.s Bonding Systems Division and is responsible
or the commercialization o a number o major new products. He frst discovered the work
o Scitovsky and Florman while researching his thesis as a graduate student at the MIT Sloan
School o Management.
dO EnGInEErS ImprOvE lIvES?
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
34/80
34 Unleash Your Inner Innovator
By John R. Platt
Irst met Je (not his real name) at a bookstore in central New Jersey. Je was an IEEE
member and an engineer, but he didnt seem to have a very high opinion o himsel. I just
do my job, he told me. Im not one o those R&D guys.
This surprised me. I asked him, Dont you think youll invent something some day? Nah,
he replied. I dont think I have it in me to do something really innovative.
I elt bad or Je, because o those two words he used: really innovative. Without even
realizing it, Je was placing so much pressure on himsel and his creativity that he wasnt
even willing to try.
The truth is, ideas come in all shapes and sizes, and anyone can come up an innovative idea.
But unortunately, not everyone puts themselves in an intellectual place where they are ready
to take advantage o their own creativity to do something innovative.
So... how do you come up with something innovative? Sometimes all it takes is putting
yoursel in the right rame o mind. Here are some strategies and approaches you can take
to help unleash your own inner innovator.
Step 1: Ignore the Nay-Sayers... Including Yoursel
The rst step toward coming up with an innovative idea is to give yoursel permission to
innovate. You cant do anything i youre holding yoursel back. I you have ideas, let them
live. Write them down. Try them out. Test them. Voice them. Exercise your creativity. The
more you let yoursel think in new ways, them more oten you will do it.
Dont let others shoot your ideas down, either. This can happen ar too oten on an organiza-tional level. That wont work here or Weve always done it this way are no longer excus-
es. Rigidity leads to stagnation. Dont be araid o change. Embrace it.
Step 2: Start Small (Unless You Think Big)
Not every innovation changes the world in one giant step. Sometimes its just as important to
make small, incremental changes.
Think about it: can you make a small improvement to something that already exists? Can you
add value to an existing application? I you could improve a device that you use every day, how
would you do it? Can you combine two ideas and make them better or easier when the work
together?
Along the same line, many processes are ripe or improvement and innovation. Start by taking
a look at the processes you use every day. I something takes ten steps, can you do it in nine?
I not, can you trim the time or any o the steps and make them more ecient? Is there an
entirely dierent way o doing something which will produce the same or similar result? Can
you cut costs? These are all vital questions, and answering them is just as important as coming
up with a new product.
You dont have to start small, o course. Your ability to innovate is limited only by your ability to
dream. Speaking o which...
ThE BEST Of TOdayS TOdayS EnGInEEr: On InnOvaTIOn
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
35/80
3
Step 3: Inspire/Challenge Your Creativity
Youve probably heard the expression think outside the box. Its a good phrase, but how do
you actually do it?
Heres one example. In 1975, musician Brian Eno and painter Peter Schmidt came up with atechnique to break themselves out o creative stalemates. They produced a deck o cards they
called Oblique Strategies. Each card contained a simple, challenging statement, like change
instrument roles,turn it upside down and emphasize the faws. While some o the cards
obviously have more to do with music than anything else, they have been used or years by
numerous writers and creative people to help point their work in directions they might not
otherwise have expected.
The lessons o Oblique Strategies are simple: ask questions, dont make assumptions,
dont orce yoursel down the same path over and over again, look outside yoursel, and trust
yoursel to come up with the answers you need.
Step 4: Role Play
Lets say youre working a particularly thorny problem, and you just cant come up with an an-
swer. But perhaps you know o someone else in your eld lets call him Fred who excels
at this type o work. Dont go ask Fred or help, but instead, ask yoursel: What would Fred
do in this situation? Get inside Freds head and put yoursel in his shoes. By looking at things
rom Freds perspective, you might be able to role-play yoursel into an answer.
This technique also works in reverse. Just ask yoursel, What wouldntFred do? Sometimes
taking the opposite approach o the experts in your eld can yield surprising results.
Another orm o role playing can be o great use when working on new products. Try to put
yoursel in the mindset o your end-user. How will they use a product? What need will it
serve? What problems would get in the way o their enjoyment? What would make it moreuseul? Understanding your customer is more than a marketing technique, it can help you to ll
a need that isnt being lled.
Step 5: Absorb Everything
Your mind is just like your stomach: it needs to be ed in order to uel your creativity. Read ev-
erything you can get your hands on. Try new things. Cram your head with concepts and ideas
and realities. Once your head is ull, your subconscious mind can start to sort through all o
those little bits o inormation and combine them in unexpected ways. When something new
comes along, it may trigger a memory o something else, and your mind may combine the two
to create something entirely new.
One man who understands this practice is science-ction and comic-book writer Warren
Ellis (Planetary, Crooked Little Vein). Ellis is known or the wild ideas which populate his ction.
He also has a very good take on where inspiration, creativity and innovation come rom: You
take it rom everywhere. Its like making compost: you stack up a big pile o crap until it starts
steaming, and hope something useul uses together at the bottom o the pile. You take in as
much inormation, as much experience, as possible, and let it foat around until bits connect
together and orm something new. Thats inspiration. Thats writing.
unlEaSh yOur InnEr InnOvaTOr
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
36/80
36Thats also innovation. Give it a try. See i your mind can take one plus one and come up with
three.
Step 6: Try, Try, Try, then Fail Again
Not every idea is going to pan out. Dont worry about it. Learn rom your mistakes, and keeptrying. Or examine where you went wrong, and ask i it might lead to something dierent than
what you were trying in the rst place.
Ater that, start again. Youve got nothing to lose.
John R. Platt is a reelance writer and marketing consultant. He can be ound online at
www.john-platt.com. Comments may be submitted to [email protected].
unlEaSh yOur InnEr InnOvaTOr
8/9/2019 The Best of Today_s Engineer on Innovation
37/80
310 Thoughts About Innovation
by Jim Jindrick
Say innovation, and you might think o such breakthroughs as robotic rovers on Mars,
cloned arm animals or satellite radio broadcasting. While these modern-day advances are
certainly remarkable, more modest innovations get introduced every day. Whether simple or
complex, several rules