the best of today_s engineer on innovation

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


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.


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


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?



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


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.



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


8/80

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.



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.


Figure 1


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.



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



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.



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



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-


Figure 2


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.


Figure 3


16/80


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.



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



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])



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.



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


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.



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.



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.

([email protected])



25/80


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-



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


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.



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


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



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?


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.



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.



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...



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


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


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

the best of today_s engineer on innovation

Documents