The Open UniversityFaculty of Technology

T302Innovation: Design, Environment and Strategy

Block 1: An Introduction to Innovation

Prepared for the course team by

Ernest Taylor

April 1995

STUDY GUIDE 1

AIMS 1

OUTCOMES 1

WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO 2

STUDY CHART 2

PART 1 'INVENTION' AND 'INNOVATION' 3

1.1 Introduction 3

1.2 Some Key Concepts 5

1.3 Patents and their Role in Invention 11

1.4 Sources of Invention and the routes to Innovation 12

PART 2 THE INNOVATION PROCESS 24

2.1 The Heart of Invention24

2.2 Models of the Innovation Process 29

PART 3 THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF INNOVATION 38

3.1 The Third Technological Revolution? 38

3.2 Innovations in the Manufacturing Process 45

3.3 Standards and their Role in Innovation 47

PART 4 SUCCESS IN INNOVATION 50

4.1 'Winning' Technology 50

4.2 Checklist of 'Success Factors' 51

4.3 Picking 'Winners' 55

PART 5 THE FUTURE OF INNOVATION 57

ANSWERS TO SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS 60

CHECKLIST OF OBJECTIVES 72

REFERENCES 73

APPENDIX75

Glossary of Key Terms 75

1

STUDY GUIDE

This first Block of T302 sets out to introduce the subjects of invention and innovation, thepeople who play a part in these processes, the context in which they take place, and the mainfactors which influence success. In the rest of the course, each main Block of course materialwill examine a key aspect of the innovation process in much more detail.

AIMS

The aims of Block 1 are:1. To identify and explain some of the key concepts involved in the process of inventionand innovation.2. To identify and explore some of the main sources of invention and routes to successfulinnovation.3. To identify some of the main components of the innovation process.4. To identify and discuss the steps which make up the invention activity at the heart of theinnovation process.5. To outline some models of the innovation process and evaluate the extent to which theyare able to represent the complexity of that process.6. To show that invention and innovation take place in a changing context of social,political, economic and cultural constraints.7. To demonstrate the importance of innovations in the manufacturing process to theinnovation process as a whole.8. To identify and explore the main factors that influence success and failure in innovation.9. To consider the future of innovation, and the extent to which it can be predicted.

OUTCOMES

After you have studied this Block, you should be able to do the following:

• give simple definitions of the key concepts associated with invention and innovation

• explain the variety of different sources (or mix of sources) from which innovations can arise

• identify the key components of the innovation process in any given example of innovation

• discuss models of the innovation process and evaluate the extent to which they are able to represent the complexity of that process

• explain how invention and innovation take place in a changing context of social, political, economic and cultural constraints

• outline the importance of process innovation

• identify and discuss the main factors that influence success in a given example of innovation

• analyse any simple common household object and show how it is the result of an evolutionary development of materials, components and techniques.

• evaluate the extent to which the future of a particular technology can be predicted and controlled.

2

WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO

At various points in your study of the Block you will be directed to case study and theoryarticles in the File , and to any audio, video or broadcast material associated with the Block.The Study Chart summarises the flow of work. After each 'excursion' to material outside themain Block text we provide a set of self assessment questions (SAQs). If some of the articlescontain a certain amount of technical material, do not be alarmed if you find it heavy going.Remember that it is not the technical detail that is important, but rather the overall argumentsabout the product development/innovation process. The SAQs together with the Checklist ofObjectives at the end of the Block should help you to identify the main teaching points.

Before reading further it would be a good idea to look at the TMA question(s) for this Block (ifyou have not done so already) to see what work is expected of you by the end of your study ofthis Block.

STUDY CHART

Block Text File TV

WEEK 1

1. Invention and Innovation

2. The Innovation Process Freeman

Rothwell

WEEK 2

3. The Changing Context of

Innovation

Bell

Taylor

4. Success in Innovation Basalla

Arthur

5. The Future of Innovation TV

3

PART 1 'INVENTION' AND 'INNOVATION'

1.1 INTRODUCTION

At the end of the twentieth century technological innovation seems to be accelerating at an

increasing rate. This has resulted in an amazing variety of new products, processes and

technical systems, produced by means of a complex manipulation of materials and ideas, to

meet ever more sophisticated sets of requirements. In the Westernised World at least,

innovation is widely believed to be vital for ensuring the economic prosperity not only of

individuals and commercial organisations, but also of nations.

Progress itself is often defined in terms of the ability of individuals and organisations to invent

new products and processes, devise improvements to existing products and make a success of

selling such ‘innovations’ on the market. Products developed over the last hundred years such

as the telephone (originating in the 1870s), motor vehicles (1880s), television (1920s),

computers (1940s) have transformed the world in which we live and the way in which we

organise our lives. Equally importantly, inventive skills have been applied to manufacturing

processes, enabling new and improved products to be made more efficiently with lower labour

materials and manufacturing costs. The invention of faster and more efficient processes has

enabled the quality of innovative products to be steadily improved over the lifetime of a product,

yet its price to customers reduced thus promoting sales and profits. This can continue for a

long time, at least until the market is saturated or a newer innovation comes along which has a

competitive advantage e.g. it is cheaper, easier to use, more reliable, does the job better. Most

'mature' everyday products are now relatively cheaper than when they were new, and certainly

perform more reliably. For example, the ball point pen was invented by Laszlo Biro in 1938.

The first 'Biro' to go on sale in the UK in 1946 cost 55 shillings (£2.75) which was more than

half the average weekly wage at the time. It required refills and 'service' to be carried out by the

retailer! However, an industrial process for manufacturing the pens that dramatically lowered the

cost of production was developed in 1953 by a Frenchman, Marcel Bich. Nowadays one can

buy a perfectly adequate, reliable ball-point pen for a few pence; in fact, at the time of writing the

Biro BiC Crystal, direct descendant of the original Biro, costs 16 pence, and more than five

billion BiC 'biros' are sold each year. You will find out more about the Biro BiC Crystal in your

Mini-project.

Everyone is aware of successful innovations. The Walkman personal stereo cassette player,

invented by Akio Morita the President of Sony in 1979, has sales of more than 100 million to

date. The laser was developed in the 1950s and first appeared in 1960. Although initially

perceived by many as a weapon (a 'death ray') its first practical application was in medicine for

eye surgery. Lasers have gone on to have widespread use in medicine, in industry for cutting

and welding, in commerce for bar-code readers, in entertainment for compact disc players and

so on. The world market for laser technology is now over $100 billion a year. But these

4

successes are only the tip of the innovation iceberg. For every successful innovative product

there are many which do not achieve commercial success and are eventually (or even quickly!)

withdrawn.

Often these failed innovations lose out to a competing technology. In the 1840s when railway-

mania was at its height, Isambard Kingdom Brunel helped install for the South Devon Railway

an 'atmospheric railway' which dispensed with conventional railway engines altogether. The

power was provided by trackside pumping stations evacuating the air from a continuous pipe,

causing a piston attached to the train to move in the direction of the lower pressure, taking the

train with it. Similar systems were installed for the Dublin & Kingstown railway in Ireland, the

London & Croydon Railway and between Nanterre and St Germain in France. However,

despite certain technical advantages (it was clean, quiet and potentially energy-saving) its

developers were not able to overcome several key technical problems. A major problem was the

effective sealing of the gap between the pipe and the train's piston - the vacuum removed the

natural oils from the leather seal which then rotted due to the combined effect of rain, rust and

rats eating it, thus requiring regular and costly replacement. There were also some fundamental

disadvantages. If there was a mechanical failure in any one of the chain of pumping stations

then no trains could move until the fault was repaired. Also, as the continuous pipe meant there

could be no 'level' crossings, there were breaks in the pipe at each station to allow road

crossings; this meant that marshalling of rolling stock had to be done by horse or by hand. In

addition, the pipe permitted travel in only one direction at a time along the length of the single-

track line between stations, reducing the line's capacity and thus its income. The competitor

technology (conventional steam locomotion) was more flexible and reliable (having had the

benefit of more years of development) and had none of the above disadvantages. Although

atmospheric railways were built and operated for a brief period, the South Devon section

(closely followed by the Croydon) was abandoned in 1848 after several years of costly

development, the Kingstown branch was closed in 1855 and finally the Paris line in 1860.

Atmospheric traction did not offer sufficient technical and economic advantages over steam

locomotion and thus even its enthusiastic supporters could not transform it into a successful

innovation.

In 1924 Dr. Anton Flettner, a German inventor, tested a prototype of one of his inventions, a

'rotor ship'. Based on the discovery that rotating cylinders could extract 15 times as much

energy from the wind as the same area of sail, he equipped a 680-ton schooner, the Buckau, with

two cylindrical towers made of sheet iron, rotated by small electric motors at their base. Results

of the trial suggested that substitution of 'rotors' for sails in vessels up to 3000 tons was a

practical possibility. Indeed, Flettner later equipped another ship, the Baden-Baden, with rotors

and successfully crossed the Atlantic. However, he did not achieve his aim which was to have

rotors added to all steam or marine diesel-powered vessels to reduce expenditure on coal and

5

oil. Rotors did not offer a significant improvement over existing technologies, they merely

offered added complexity and unreliability.

For a period in the 1960s, the 8-track audio cartridge competed with the Dutch company

Philips’ 'compact' cassette tape which was launched in 1963. Philips decided to allow other

manufacturers to use its patent free of charge in order to encourage the spread of the audio

cassette throughout the world. The cassette quickly established itself as the market leader with

more pre-recorded material available than on the 8-track but with the clinching technical

advantage that it was possible to make your own recordings on the cassette. Despite quite a

large-scale investment behind its development and manufacture, the 8-track cartridge faded away

in the early 1970s.

For every product, successful or not, which reaches the market there are many more which never

get that far. It has been estimated that no more than 2% of inventions go on to become

innovations available on the market. Yet the urge to invent remains strong and the commercial

rewards of success can be spectacular. There are 32 million patents worldwide, and one million

are added each year - 500 000 of these each year by the Japanese alone. There are many more

inventions world wide which are not patented.

Though it is sometimes difficult to be precise about this, it has been calculated that by the 1990s

only 5% of patents were being assigned to individuals, while 95% were assigned to companies,

some of whom are actively and aggressively engaged in inventing. A century ago these figures

would have been reversed.

1.2 SOME KEY CONCEPTS

This Block is an introduction to the processes of invention and innovation, many differentaspects of which will be discussed in subsequent Blocks. But before we go any further let'sbriefly establish the meaning of some of the key concepts which you will encounter throughoutthe course. I propose to examine the following concepts: invention, design, product champion,entrepreneur, innovation, radical innovation, incremental innovation, dominant design, processinnovation and diffusion. Although innovation is the term applied to one particular stage, it isalso common to talk about the whole process from invention to diffusion as the innovationprocess. (These and other definitions can also be found in the 'Glossary of Key Terms' in theAppendix.) In order to illustrate these concepts I will use the example of a significant inventionwith which we are all familiar and which has come to symbolise the inspired moment at the veryheart of invention - the electric light. The TV programme for this course also deals with thissubject.

An invention is a novel idea that has been transformed into reality and given a physical form

such as a description, sketch or model conveying the essential principles of a new product,

process or system. So an inventor may have many ideas for new products or improvements to

existing processes, say, but these do not constitute an invention until the ideas have been

transformed into something real, such as drawings, or a prototype with the potential for practical

6

application. As you will see later in this Block, one of the conditions for granting a patent

(which protects an invention from being copied by others) is that it "must be capable of

industrial application". Given that the process of invention takes place over time it is often not

possible to be precise about the exact moment that an inventive idea becomes an invention. For

example, the prolific US inventor, Thomas Edison, began work on inventing an incandescent

lamp powered by electricity in 1878. He was enthused by a new kind of generator which had

been developed to power a small arc light system and realised the commercial possibilities of

being the first to provide a large scale electric lighting system. He had a vision of lighting up an

entire city district with such a generator. However, arc lighting (whereby a very bright light was

produced by a continuous arc of electricity leaping between two electrodes) suffered from

frequent burn-out of the tips of its electrodes, which thus required regular replacement, as well

as the problem of controlling the gap between the electrodes when they were constantly being

burned up by the arc. Edison saw the need for inventing an electric lamp which would be

effective and long lasting. He thought that the solution might lie in the incandescent lamp - that

is, a lamp in which light is produced by heating some substance to a high temperature, at which

point it starts to glow. Others had been trying for years to achieve this goal, in fact the first

patent on an incandescent lamp was taken out in Britain in 1841. (The situation of many people

working towards solving the same technological problem is common and often results in

'simultaneous invention'. You will come across other examples of this elsewhere in the course.)

The most notable of these other inventors was Joseph Swan, an Englishman who had produced

a design which featured a carbonized paper filament which glowed inside a glass when

electricity was passed through it. The air was evacuated from the inside of the bulb so that

oxygen would not cause the filament to burn up. However, no one, including Swan, had

managed to produce a filament which would glow for any length of time before being

destroyed. Edison's challenge was to find a suitable material for the filament which would

permit a bright glow without burning up too quickly. He had ideas about how it might be done

but it took a year of searching for and experimenting with many different filament materials, and

also improving the method of achieving the necessary vacuum inside the light bulb, before he

produced a working model of his carbon filament lamp in October 1879. This consisted of a

thread of carbonized cotton, bent into the shape of a horse shoe and mounted inside a glass

vacuum bulb. When connected to an electric current the new 'electric candle' burned for almost

two days. This first reliable working model could be said to be the invention. However, before

the electric light could be offered for sale to customers, there was still a great deal of work to be

done by Edison and his team of workers at his Menlo Park laboratory.

Developing an invention in a laboratory or workshop is one thing, but manufacturing an

innovation on a scale large enough to satisfy the demands of those people or organisations who

might want to buy it is another matter. Edison and his team continued to develop and improve

the original invention itself and the related devices necessary for reliable, large-scale lighting

7

systems (such as techniques for creating better vacuums inside glass bulbs, improved

generators, distribution systems and so on). Edison also had to ensure that his electric light and

its related sub-systems could be reproduced on the large scale which would be required to

achieve commercial success. This involved producing a design, i.e. specific plans, drawings

and instructions to enable the manufacture of products, processes or systems which would

result in the appropriate particular physical embodiment of his invention.

Throughout the development of this innovation Edison endeavoured, by means of persuasive

argument and demonstrations of progress, to convince those people who were in a position to

help further the success of the electric light that it had great potential (financiers who could

provide capital for more research and development, industrialists who might install it in their

factories, politicians who might agree to a large-scale city installation of lighting systems). This

is a key role in the development of any invention; it needs a product champion - an individual

or group committed to the development of a certain product, prepared to 'champion' it against

all resistance. Usually, such championing takes place in an institutional context where the

'champion' is trying to persuade the organisation that it is worth investing in a particular new

product, or is prepared to defend an innovative product from attack once the process of

development is under way. Sometimes, however, this takes place outside an organisation, where

a sympathetic supporter will promote the qualities of an invention to those who might be willing

to finance its development. If no outside support is forthcoming, or if even more support is

needed to give momentum to the innovation process, the original inventor will need to take on

the additional role of champion, as we saw with Edison.

From this it is clear that one of the key requirements for transforming an invention into an

innovation is money - to pay for the people and equipment needed to refine the invention into a

practical working prototype, and then to meet the costs of manufacturing it. A key role in

providing this vital financial support is played by the entrepreneur. This is an individual or

group, committed to the development of a particular new product or process, prepared to

provide, or to persuade others to provide, the finance necessary to turn the invention into an

innovation. Entrepreneurs are likely to be involved at an early stage of an innovation's

development, either taking the risk of investing their own money or raising money for a project

from others. Most people with money to invest will be inclined to wait until it is clearer whether

or not an innovation is going to be successful before investing. Part of the task of the

entrepreneur is to persuade them to take a risk! It is often the case that at the early stage of the

innovation process individual inventors or entrepreneurs are unable to persuade people to risk

investing in a new and untried invention. In the absence of the necessary financial support

inventors can either give up, or take on the entrepreneurial role themselves. Block 2 discusses

several examples of the activities of 'inventor-entrepreneurs'. Edison was one such inventor-

entrepreneur. He used earnings from the commercial success of his earlier inventions, together

with some outside investment, to build his Menlo Park workshops in 1876. Edison and his

8

team of technicians and mechanics at Menlo Park produced 400 patented inventions over the

next six years, including in 1877 the carbon transmitter which helped improve Bell's recently-

invented telephone, and the phonograph. This innovative laboratory thus provided Edison with

a firm technical base from which to develop the electric light, and freedom from the financial

pressures which bring down many inventors if they are unable to secure a quick return on

investment in their invention. However, Edison was not typical of inventor-entrepreneurs. His

reputation for commercially successful inventions was so high that within a few weeks of

announcing his intention to develop electric lighting, financiers were queuing up to invest in the

Edison Electric Light Company - a situation the majority of inventors can only dream about!

Even Edison, though, could not combine perfectly the creative skills of invention and innovation,

with the business and managerial skills of the entrepreneur. It is said that he "so totally

mismanaged the businesses he started that he had to be removed from every one of them to save

it". (Drucker, 1985).

The point at which the electric light first became available on the market was the moment the

invention became an innovation, that is a novel product, process or system at the point of first

commercial introduction or use. Even this moment of achieving innovation is sometimes

difficult to pinpoint in a particular case. The first full-scale use of the electric light outside of the

laboratory was in May 1880 when Edison installed 115 of them on the new steamship

Columbia at the suggestion of its owner, Henry Villard, who had become an enthusiast for the

electric light after seeing a demonstration at Menlo Park. The electric system was more suitable

than open-flame lighting in the confined spaces of a ship. It was so effective that it was 15

years before it was replaced with more modern equipment. However, it could be argued that

this was not the moment of innovation as it was done as a personal favour rather than as a

purely commercial transaction. One of the first commercial installations of Edison's complete

electric light system (generators, distributing circuits, and the bulbs themselves) was for the

lithography factory of Hinds, Ketcham & Company in New York in early 1881.

The electric light might be said to be an example of a radical innovation, involving a major

new step in the development of technology. Radical innovations can have a widespread and

sometimes 'revolutionary' impact on our lives and are said by some to account for technological

'progress' but, as has been hinted at by the brief mention of the development of the electric light,

and as you will see in later examples of the innovation process at work, most radical innovations

are actually an accumulation of much smaller improvements, often carried out by many different

individuals and organisations over a period of time. The notion of the electric light might seem

like a radical idea, but it was actually the product of an attempt to provide a form of lighting

which improved upon gas light (increasingly used in urban homes but with an associated fire

hazard and impact on air quality) and existing electric arc lighting (too dazzling for domestic

use, and suffering from the control and maintenance problems mentioned above). Furthermore

the provision of an effective system of electric lighting depended upon the steady incremental

9

improvement in a range of associated technologies - glass blowing, vacuum pumping, electricity

distribution and so on. Thus the application of the label depends on the context and the time

scale. 'Radical' innovations are often incremental in terms of their scientific and technological

development, but radical in their application and ultimate impact on society. Also the early,

often unreliable, examples of an innovation might not seem to be a significant improvement on

existing technology until improvements in performance encourage more people to buy the

innovation and increase its impact. So an apparently radical innovation actually involves much

incremental innovation, i.e. technical modifications or improvements to an existing product,

process or system. This is sometimes known as 'evolutionary' innovation, though the analogy

with biological evolution is not exact as technological evolution involves conscious and

deliberate choice.

In most examples of evolving technological innovation there is a period when rival designs are

competing to outperform each other, both technically and in terms of appealing to purchasers in

the 'market place'. Certain features of a product or process come to be recognised as meeting

key needs and they are incorporated in subsequent 'improved' versions of the design, other

features might meet too narrow a set of needs to be economical and are dropped. Gradually

what emerges is a dominant design, which is the design containing those implicit features

which are recognised as essential by a majority of manufacturers and purchasers. This

defines the expected appearance of a particular innovation and how it is meant to work. A

dominant design is not necessarily the one with the best technical performance, but its

performance will be good enough so that, together with its other desirable features, it will meet

the needs of many different types of user.

In the case of the incandescent lamp the dominant design had emerged by 1884, only four years

after the first lamps had gone on public display around Menlo Park. It consisted of a screw-in

metal base, a carbonized bamboo filament with platinum electrical wiring attached to a glass

stem, all of which was sealed into a pear-shaped glass vacuum bulb (see Figure X). This design

was so successful that competitors did not try to devise a different design but merely to copy

Edison's; the company spent the next seven years repeatedly sueing rivals for infringement of

the patents until its dominance was clearly established.

One a product innovation is well established, creative energies tend to turn towards incremental

improvements and process innovation, that is an improvement in the organisation and

method of manufacture. These two factors typically result in a better performing product yet

one that can be manufactured in less time, possibly using fewer components and, through the

use of machinery, by less skilled and experienced (and therefore less expensive) and fewer

workers. For example, incremental improvements in the type of filaments used, metal gradually

replacing carbon, led to a threefold increase in the efficiency of the electric light. And process

innovations made the manufacturing process more efficient (e.g. in the case of the electric light

a mercury pump invented in 1885 reduced the time for producing a vacuum in the bulb from

10

five hours to thirty minutes; hand-blowing of bulbs was replaced by a semi-automated machine

in 1894).

All of these process improvements can lead to a dramatic fall in the production costs, and thus

the sales price, of an innovation in the early years of its use. For example, after 15 years of

production the number of steps involved in producing a lamp had been reduced from 200 to 20,

and the labour time from nearly an hour to 20 seconds. Not surprisingly the price of a carbon

filament electric lamp had fallen to less than 20% of its original price.

Finally, as an innovation becomes accepted by an increasing number of individual and

organisational users it goes through the process of diffusion which is the process of adoption

of an innovation into increasingly widespread use in the market. From its original installation

within the grounds of Edison's Menlo Park laboratory in late 1879, his system of electric

lighting was installed in increasing numbers of individual factory and textile mill installations,

and urban street lighting including the fulfilment of one of his visions when his electric light

system started operating in the Pearl Street district of Lower Manhattan in 1882. His system

gradually eclipsed its rivals and diffused into widespread use in commercial, civic and domestic

situations.

Once an innovation has achieved widespread diffusion so that most of its market has been

captured, and the dominant design has been steadily improved via incremental changes until it is

relatively stable or 'mature', then one of two things usually happens. Either the mature

innovation continues to sell with only minor modifications, unchallenged by any serious

competition, or a 'radical' new invention is devised which sets off another cycle of the innovation

process to challenge what already exists.

In the case of the electric light, there were a series of incremental product innovations (such as

metal filaments, gas filled bulbs, frosted bulbs) as well as process innovations (some of which

were mentioned above) which steadily improved performance and reduced price until, by the

1930s the incandescent light was mature and widely diffused. Then in the mid-1930s a new

invention appeared which was to rival the incandescent lamp as market leader - the fluorescent

lamp. This was the culmination of around 70 years' research into fluorescence (the conversion

of one kind of light into another). In the modern fluorescent light, a heated electrode emits

electrons into a tube of mercury vapour causing the vapour to emit ultra-violet light (which is

invisible to the human eye); this in turn causes the phosphor coating on the inside of the tube to

emit visible white light. Another cycle of innovation was under way when the new lamp was

first introduced in 1938. Gradually the fluorescent light began to encroach on the market

captured by the incandescent lamp, first in the workplace and then increasingly in the home,

especially after the introduction of compact fluorescent lamps in the 1980s. And in the early

1990s a prototype invention was revealed which might be the subject of the next cycle of

lighting innovation. The new device from a small Californian firm, Intersource Technologies,

11

uses a magnetic coil to generate radio waves which excite gases in the lamp, causing the

phosphorous coated interior surface of the glass cover to glow. The company estimated that the

operational life of the lamp would be 15,000 to 20,000 operating hours, compared with 750 to

1000 hours for a conventional incandescent lamp. What is more, a lamp failure would require

the replacement of the glass cover only, rather then the expensive base and electronic

components, making the system even cheaper to run. Time will tell whether this idea is

transformed into an innovation which goes on to success in the market and becomes diffused

into widespread use!

At any stage of the innovation process, from invention to diffusion, a 'bright idea' with market

potential can be a target for unscrupulous copying. There are examples of successful

innovations being copied, as you will see from the example of the Workmate portable

workbench discussed in Block 2. However, inventors are particularly vulnerable to having their

ideas copied in the early stages of invention. As we've seen with the mention of 'simultaneous

invention' above, people might be working on similar ideas in parallel, and the origins of

inventive ideas might be difficult to identify with precision. Thus it is sometimes important for

inventors to establish their claim to a particular invention and to defend it against unauthorised

exploitation by others. The next sub-section mentions a variety of ways of protecting what is

known as intellectual property.

1.3 PATENTS AND THEIR ROLE IN INVENTION

There are different forms of legal protection to guard against the copying of inventions and designs.

The most well known of these is the patent which protects new inventions or technological

developments. Patents are a means by which inventors are granted, by the State, exclusive rights to

make, use or sell a new invention for a limited period (16-20 years in most countries) in exchange for

agreeing to make public the details of their invention. The inventor secures a temporary monopoly

protected by law, and the State secures an addition to the body of technological knowledge which

encourages progress and wealth creation. A patent application contains a detailed description of the

invention and the reasoning which led to it, and often contains background information on previous

related technology (known as 'prior art'). Thus patents provide an enormous amount of technical

information which is used by many individuals and companies. (The word 'patent' comes from the Latin

'litterae patentes' or 'open letters', meaning an official document that was open to inspection by all.) In

order to be granted a patent, an inventor's product or process must satisfy three criteria:

• it must be new - the idea must never have been disclosed publicly in any way, anywhere, prior to the claim being filed

• it must involve an 'inventive step' - the idea must not be obvious to someone with a good knowledge and experience of the subject

• it must be capable of industrial application - it must take the physical form of a substance, product or apparatus, or of an industrial type of process.

12

Patents are not granted for certain categories of 'invention' such as a 'discovery', a theory, or an artistic

creation. Such a list of exclusions varies in different countries though; in the UK one cannot patent

computer programmes, new plant varieties, new methods of medical treatment, whereas patenting is

allowed on some of those categories of 'invention' in the US. There are other forms of protection for

intellectual property. The design features which distinguish one product from another can be protected

by means of registered designs. Sketches and drawings for a new product can be protected by design

right which is an extension of copyright which protects an artistic creation. Words or symbols which

are used to distinguish goods or services from rivals in a similar field can be protected by trade and

service marks.

A patent application is required to contain a description of the invention in sufficient detail to enable it

to be produced by a third party. Once granted, it gives an invention the legal status of personal property

which can be sold, or bequeathed to heirs of the inventor. In addition, the owner of a patent may

authorise others to make, use or sell the invention in exchange for royalties or other compensation

However, once granted, copies of the patent application are publicly available. It has been known for

unscrupulous companies to manufacture an invention without permission from the patent holder.

Individual inventors are particularly susceptible to this kind of treatment as patenting is expensive,

especially if world-wide protection is needed, and the only means of protecting patent rights if they have

been infringed is via the courts. While large companies might be in a position to take such defensive

action, few individuals can afford it. Ron Hickman, the inventor of the Workmate portable work bench,

has spent more than £1 million in defending his patents as part of his agreement with Black & Decker

to whom he had licensed production of his invention. You will be reading more about this case in Block

2 which also looks in more detail in a Supplement at patents and the other forms of protection for

intellectual property.

1.4 SOURCES OF INVENTION AND THE ROUTES TO INNOVATION

We saw earlier with the volume of new patents applied for each year, not to mention the many

inventions which are not patented, that the level of inventive activity around the world is high. As

with the volume and diversity of inventive ideas, there seems to be variety in the sources of

inventions and the routes which they can take as their inventors and supporters try to convert

‘bright ideas’ into practical products or processes which might appeal to the market place.

As you read through this general description of some of the sources of invention and the routes

to successful innovation, make a note of what seem to be the key components common to many

of the examples below. We can use those key components to construct a model of the

innovation process i.e. the ways in which inventive ideas appear and are transformed into

practical products or processes sold on the market. The model should then begin to explain

how this process works.

Some inventions are designed to improve on the performance of existing products and

processes. Inventive ideas often arise because the use of existing technology proves to be

13

unsatisfactory in some way (too costly, too inefficient, too dangerous ...). A period of

concentrated experience of carrying out a particular task can reveal the inadequacies of existing

products or processes used, and is often vital preparation for producing ideas for improvements.

A general example of this can be found in the inventions of the Shakers. They were a religious

sect who flourished in the US in the nineteenth century after moving from England. Their name

derived from the shaking dances which were a feature of their religious services, but their

communities also became well known for their celibacy, pacifism, communism, hard work and

craft skills. However they were far from being anti-technology, indeed they used many labour-

saving devices and invented improvements to them based on their experience of using

technology. In 1810 Eliza Babbitt had the idea for the circular saw based on her observation

that one half of the manual sawing motion was wasted. She produced a prototype using a

notched tin disk attached to the spindle of her spinning wheel. (Unknown to her on the other

side of the Atlantic in the UK, Henry Maudslay had also invented a circular saw seven years

earlier.) Babbitt also invented the process of cutting nails from sheets of rolled iron, having

watched the existing method of making wrought nails by the laborious process of hammering

and hand-shaping metal. Emeline Hart invented a revolving oven to ease the drudgery of large-

volume communal baking. Other Shaker inventions included one of the first washing machines

(steam driven), and a centrifugal clothes dryer 130 years before the invention of the 'spin' dryer.

The Shakers' opposition to capitalism meant they didn't take out patents on their inventions, so

many of these devices were unknown outside their own communities.

Another example of inventions arising out of the problems of using existing technology is that

of Elijah McCoy. He was a prolific inventor, born in 1843 in a community of escaped slaves in

Canada. Although trained as an engineer in Scotland, when he went to the United States and

tried to get a job with the Michigan Central Railroad the only position he was offered was as a

locomotive fireman. However, immersion in the everyday problems experienced by firemen on

steam locomotives stimulated McCoy to invent something which tackled some of those

problems directly. Friction in the moving parts of steam engines generated so much heat that

they had to be stopped at regular intervals to be lubricated by hand, causing delays and

requiring extra staff to be hired to do this work. McCoy invented and patented in 1872 an

automatic lubrication device, which at first was used mostly on stationary steam engines. After

a further year of development he patented an improved lubricator suitable for both stationary

and moving engines. His employers gave him a new job providing instruction in the use of the

new lubricators. McCoy continued to develop improvements to his invention, and his

engineering skills and the quality of his lubricators compared with rivals led to the term "the

Real McCoy" being applied generally to the highest quality products.

Some inventions are designed to replace existing products and processes with a completely

new technology. In the early 1930s a US patent lawyer, Chester Carlson, began to be

dissatisfied with existing methods of copying patents which he required for his work. He was

14

determined to find a better means not covered by existing patents on photographic methods

which were slow and inefficient. After an extensive search through patents and other literature,

he identified some promising ideas. He began experimenting and in 1938 produced the first

print using a process that eventually was to become the basis of the modern photocopier. Static

electricity was the key to his invention. Carlson started with a sulphur-coated plate, though later

this was developed into a selenium drum, which is given a negative electrical charge. An image

of a document is then projected or reflected onto the charged surface. The charge is removed

where the light strikes the surface leaving only the dark part of the image (text, drawings etc.)

charged. Positively-charged particles of dry powder are then applied which stick to the

negatively-charged portions of the plate/drum. The powder is then transferred to paper and

fused on to it by heating, leaving a permanent image. In his 1939 patent Carlson called this

process 'electrophotography', but he soon came to call it 'xerography' (from the Greek xeros

meaning dry, and graphein, to write). However, his invention was a radical departure from

existing technology and it took many years both to develop and improve the invention, and to

persuade any companies to invest in it. In 1944 the Battelle Memorial Institute, a non-profit-

making organisation, agreed to finance the invention and after a few years of development

signed an agreement with a small photographic materials company, the Haloid Corporation, to

market the invention. The first electro-static copier, the Haloid 1385, came onto the market in

the late 1940s. It was manually operated and took several minutes to make each copy. Not

surprisingly, like Beidler’s machine 40 years earlier, it was not successful as it still did not offer

an advantage over existing methods of copying, which by this time were a combination of

carbon paper for a small number of copies and electro-mechanical stencil duplicators for a

larger volume. Finally though, after another decade of effort at improving the technology, the

first practical photocopier, the Xerox 914 was launched onto the market in 1959 (Haloid had

changed its name to Xerox). This was an automatic machine which operated at the push of a

button, and could produce seven copies a minute. It was the foundation for a huge multi-billion

pound business in which Xerox, thanks to its patents, had a monopoly until the late 1980s when

the patent protection expired and rivals, mainly Japanese, began to enter this lucrative market in

competition with Xerox. The original fairly straightforward need has been cultivated by what

the ever-improving technology has made possible - monochrome copiers producing a hundred

copies a minute, collating, stapling, enlarging, reducing, the colour photocopier brought out by

Canon in Japan in 1973, the laser colour copier in 1986, Panasonic’s pocket photocopier. Now

it is impossible to imagine a modern office without photocopying facilities. Even in the era of

widespread computer use and the notion of the ‘paperless office’, we are now making an

estimated 3 billion photocopies each year around the world.

Sometimes a need exists which is not met by a current invention. This was the situation facing

Percy Shaw when driving his car over unlit, often fog-bound, moorland roads in Yorkshire. He

invented the 'cats' eye' reflector which, when embedded at intervals in the centre of the road,

15

reflected a vehicle's headlights and made it easier to pick out and follow the course of the road.

With hindsight the need and the solution seem self-evident - like many ingenious ideas. But

Shaw's act of insight was to recognise the need and work out a means by which it could be met.

Sometimes an invention is developed which doesn't meet a current need, and subsequently

seems to create a need which didn’t exist previously. For example the chairman and founder of

Pentel, Yukio Horie, asked his technicians in the late 1950s to produce a pen that gave the type

of smooth black line associated with Japanese brush characters. After three years of

development Pentel came up with the ‘felt-tipped’ or ‘fibre-tipped’ Sign Pen which was

launched in 1963. This used a water-based ink fed through a capillary system so that as the ink

was deposited on the paper more was drawn through the fibre tip. Such a mechanism allowed a

smooth flow of ink even when writing upside down, and as an added advantage required

minimum care and maintenance. The company achieved great commercial success with the

fibre-tipped pen, which clearly met a latent need in the market.

Some inventions arise from the technical curiosity of an inventor rather than to meet a clear, or

even a latent need. There are many examples, particularly in the 19th Century but still

occasionally nowadays, of 'talented tinkerers' producing one invention while working on

something else. In such cases, the original inventor sometimes doesn’t have a clear idea of what

will prove to be the most profitable use of an invention. Thomas Edison invented the

phonograph in 1877 while experimenting with high-speed telegraph transmission. He was

carrying out work on an instrument which transcribed telegrams by indenting a length of paper

tape with Morse code dots and dashes. This would then be able to repeat the message as often

as required and at any speed. One day he noticed that when the tape passed through the

instrument at high speed, the indented dots and dashes struck the end of the steel spring he was

using to maintain tension on the tape and gave off a noise which he described as a "light

musical, rhythmic sound, resembling human talk heard indistinctly". This led him to think that

he might be able to record the human voice. Earlier that year Edison had started to receive a

substantial amount of money from his invention of a carbon transmitter for Alexander Graham

Bell's year-old telephone. The telephone, however, was still a luxury item, and Edison thought

that he might be able to make its use more affordable by constructing a simple and cheap

machine with which anyone could record a spoken message. The recording could then be taken

to a central 'station' where a playback machine would transmit it over the telephone line. His idea

was the vocal equivalent of sending a written message by telegraph. The story goes that neither

he nor his assistants recognised the significance of this inventive idea - this was only

appreciated by the audience for a lecture on Edison’s work given by one of his assistants E.H.

Johnson. According to Johnson's own account, when he described the ‘telephone repeater’

idea to an audience in Buffalo they cheered with excitement. A ‘Talking Machine’ was

described in the newspapers the next morning, and E.H. Johnson rushed back to Newark to tell

Edison. After acquiring the necessary materials they made the first working prototype of the

16

phonograph within twenty-four hours and recorded on tin-foil the first phonographic sentence -

‘Mary had a little lamb’!

A year later Edison published an article listing ten ways in which the public might find the

invention useful. These were (in his personal order of priority):

1. Letter writing and all kinds of dictation without the aid of a stenographer.

2. Phonographic books, which will speak to blind people without effort on their part.

3. The teaching of elocution.

4. Reproduction of music.

5. The "Family Record" - a registry of sayings, reminiscences etc. by members of a

family in their own voices, and the last words of dying persons.

6. Music boxes and toys

7. Clocks that should announce in articulate speech the time for going home, going to

meals etc.

8. The preservation of languages by exact reproduction of the manner of pronouncing.

9. Educational purposes; such as preserving the explanations made by a teacher, so that

the pupil can refer to them at any moment, and spelling or other lessons placed upon the

phonograph for convenience in committing to memory.

10. Connection with the telephone, so as to make that instrument an auxiliary in the

transmission of permanent and invaluable records, instead of being the recipient of

momentary and fleeting communication.

Music reproduction was ranked fourth because Edison thought this was a relatively trivial use

of his invention. Even when he started production of phonographs on a commercial basis (after

a ten year diversion into developing and improving the electric light) he concentrated on selling

it as a dictation machine, resisting efforts to market it for playing music. Other people saw and

exploited the entertainment potential of Edison’s invention and carried out improvements to the

technology so as to make it an effective and attractive product. It was not until the mid 1890s,

however, that the inventor himself came to accept that the primary use of this invention was for

entertainment rather than as a useful piece of office equipment.

This lesson was not learned when, sixty years on, the firm which later became Sony produced a

marketable version of the tape recorder which had been developed in Germany during the

Second World War and first used for commercial recording of music in the US in 1947.

Tokyo Telecommunications started by selling the machines to the Ministry of Justice for

recording court proceedings, and to scientists for recording data. Sales did not pick up until a

larger market was found - language teaching in schools and colleges. It was not until the late

1950s, however, when the tape recorder was marketed widely as a device for personal recording

that a mass market began to be found. True mass success followed the introduction of the

17

compact cassette which, for most consumers, was more attractive than the reel-to-reel tape

recorder for recording and playing music

The first uses are not necessarily those for which an invention will eventually become known.

Another feature of these examples is that the nature of an invention does not necessarily restrict

itself to one unique type of use, but there is often a range of different uses to which any

invention can be put. The first steam engines were not used for transportation but to pump water

from mines. Soft paper tissue was developed by Kimberley-Clark as a substitute for cotton

wool as a medical dressing during the First World War. When looking for new applications, it

was marketed as a make-up remover from 1924. It was only when users reported on its qualities

for nose-blowing that it was relaunched as Kleenex tissue handkerchief. The most widespread

applications of the Hovercraft principle are in hover lawn mowers.

All of the 'mature' products and processes which surround us today have a history of

refinement and improvement from crude beginnings. Even when there is agreement about how

an invention should be used, some have been slow to catch on because early versions performed

poorly, or were even dangerous. Early electric blankets, for example, were responsible for many

house fires and even deaths in the mid-1950s. Initial inventions are usually fairly primitive

prototypes in need of further refinement. While Edison's first 'talking machines' caused quite a

stir for six months and led to considerable speculation as to their potential uses, it soon became

clear that the invention had been launched prematurely. Edison's above list was optimistic,

particularly his preference that it should be used as a serious business machine, when the tin-

foil cylinders of the first phonographs played for little more than a minute and reproduced the

human voice in a barely recognisable form! It took almost twenty years of further development

before a reliable phonograph started to become widely available for domestic use. Wax

recording cylinders replaced the tin-foil, constant-speed electric motors (and later on cheaper

clockwork mechanisms) replaced Edison's initial hand crank, recording techniques and quality

steadily improved (early recording artists had to record each cylinder individually!), and by the

early years of the 20th Century the record disk had replaced the cylinder.

The story of the unfinished state of the Edison phonograph could be repeated for many

famous technological innovations: The cameras of the 1840s called for exposure times of ten to

ninety seconds; the cumbersome and slow typewriters of the mid-nineteenth century were

scarcely an improvement over writing with a pen; the first commercial internal combustion

engine, the vertical Otto and Langen engine of 1866, stood seven-foot tall and delivered three

horse-power; the Wright brothers’ first powered airplane stayed aloft only fifty-seven seconds;

the television receivers of the 1920s displayed small images (1.5 by 2 inches) that were blurred

and flickered badly; and the first electronic computer occupied eighteen hundred square feet of

floor space and weighed thirty tons. At first glance none of these appeared to be likely

prospects for the basis of a new industry, yet all did so”. (Basalla, 1988)

18

As well as the sort of painstaking work that either precedes an invention or goes into the steady

improvement in performance, there is often a significant role played by chance. We saw this

above with Edison and the 'talking machine'; another example is Alexander Graham Bell. Bell

was working on improvements to the telegraph to enable it to send multiple messages along the

same wire. He was experimenting with sending different tones along a wire, each of which

could be interrupted by a different morse key, when his assistant over-tightened a clamping

screw. At the other end of the ‘telegraph’ wire, Bell clearly heard a sound and began to realise

how sound waves in the air could be made to vary the strength of a current in a wire. This led

him to change direction and work towards transmitting speech. Six months later on 14 February

1876 Bell filed an application for what was probably the most valuable patent ever granted (only

two hours before another inventor, Elisha Gray, had filed a caveat that he was working on a

similar device). Though it was not until 6 March 1876 that he transmitted the first intelligible

words to his assistant, “Mr. Watson, come here - I want you”.

One invention can lead to a range of subsequent inventions. There are also situations where

technological advance results in the possibility of developing a whole range of new products

e.g. the steady reduction in size and increase in efficiency of the electric motor encouraged the

development of a range of domestic appliances (washing machines, food mixers); the invention

of the transistor (by three Bell Lab scientists Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley in 1948) led

ultimately to a vast market of consumer electronics goods (radios, hi-fi, television, personal

computers). Figure X shows a ‘family tree’ reflecting the development of the telephone. As

you can see from the ‘trunk’ of this tree, the telephone itself has been refined and developed for

more than one hundred years now, offering steady improvements both in the quality of sound

transmitted but also especially in the features offered. It has moved from a one-to-one

connection through the manual exchange (1878 New Haven, Connecticut, serving 21

subscribers one of whom was the US writer Mark Twain), dialling, pay phones (1889 Hartford,

Connecticut), the automatic exchange (patented in 1891 by an undertaker from Kansas City,

Almon B. Strowger, whose rival’s wife was an operator at a local manual exchange and was

apparently diverting calls intended for Strowger to her husband’s firm), long-distance direct

dialling, push-button dialling, memory-dialling, voice control and so on.

But in addition there have been ‘branches’ on this family tree where inventors have produced

related inventions such as the telex (invented in 1916 by the Markrum Co. of Chicago) which

enabled written messages to be sent through telephone lines and which has led more recently to

the fax machine whose sales have grown from almost none in the early 1970s to more than 10

million in use world-wide less than 20 years later. (You will be reading about the invention and

development of the fax machine in Part 4 of this Block.) Sometimes inventors working in

related areas have ‘transferred’ ideas from one area to another, such as the radio telephone

where communication is by means of radio waves rather than telephone wires. The first

recognised radio telephone was demonstrated in 1900 in the US, and the first transatlantic

19

transmission was made by AT & T in 1915 between Virginia, USA, and the Eiffel Tower. The

most recent development of this technology has been the portable cellular phone which first

appeared in Sweden in 1979 but is now to be seen (and heard!) everywhere, in motor cars, on

trains.

Some inventions have emerged ‘before their time’ and have had to wait for some other

development before they can be transformed into successful innovations. In some cases this is

not due to the failure of the inventive idea itself but just that the need is not yet established. For

example, the Picturephone™ video telephone was introduced by Bell Laboratories as a

commercial product in 1971. It was thought by many inside Bell Labs to be an example of a

'perfect' innovation. It had overcome significant technical obstacles yet still met its production

schedule and cost objectives. Market research had predicted slow acceptance followed by rapid

growth. It was, however, a costly flop. Reasons suggested for its failure include high cost ($125

rental per month), or that it was black and white at a time when consumers in the US were

getting used to colour TV. Fundamentally though, it failed because the market was not ready for

it - some said it didn't offer enough of an advantage over the telephone to justify its

intrusiveness. The original telephone took decades to gain widespread public acceptance.

Meanwhile, further technical developments in the videophone continue, particularly in Japan.

By the mid-1990s videophones had been made more efficient by the development of data

compression technology, and once more were being offered for sale. Also at that time video

links between personal computers were starting to become more common, thus exposing an

increasing number of people to the idea of remote visual communication. A new 'need' was in

the process of being cultivated, with huge rewards for the leading producers once a mass market

could be established.

There are also times when lack of ‘take up’ of an invention is due to some weakness in the

technology needed to convert the invention into an innovation on the market. This might be the

non-availability of suitable materials to enable the invention to perform effectively, or the lack of

development of a process technology to enable the efficient and cost-effective manufacture of

the invention. For example Frank Whittle’s turbojet engine patented in 1930 did not work

efficiently until manufacturers developed a new nickel-chrome alloy to enable the turbine blades

to withstand the high temperatures and stresses involved and it could not be manufactured on an

industrial scale until improvements had been made in metal processing and manufacture. This

was not achieved on any significant scale until after the Second World War, by which time

Whittle had long since allowed his basic patent to lapse because his employers, the RAF had

little faith in the feasibility or potential of his invention at the early stages of its development.

Potential investors often have to make decisions about whether to support an invention on the

evidence of early prototypes, which is unfortunate for many inventors. Perhaps it is not

surprising that there are many examples of companies who have turned down what became

highly successful and profitable inventions. For example, you will read in Block 2 how Black

20

& Decker turned down the Mk.1 Workmate, but later licensed production of the Mk.2 version

to the mutual benefit of themselves and the inventor, Ron Hickman.

Bette Nesmith Graham was an executive secretary in a Texas bank when she devised an

ingenious method of covering up her mistakes when using one of the new electric typewriters.

She had noticed how signwriters painted over any errors they made, so she took some water-

based paint and a small brush to work and used them to correct her mistakes. For five years

she worked on improving the formula, with help from the chemistry teacher at her son’s school

(her son was Mike Nesmith of the Monkees pop group). Then in 1956 she offered her

invention to IBM. They rejected it. Undeterred, Bette started her own cottage industry with the

family kitchen serving as a laboratory and the garage as a bottling plant. By the end of the

following year she was selling 100 bottles a month of her newly-named ‘Liquid Paper’, and

before long correction fluid was taken up by big business and developed into a successful mass

market innovation.

Innovation is part of a system of interconnected relationships which are evolving sometimes in

fits and starts, sometimes steadily. For example, the invention of the gyrocompass by Elmer

Sperry in 1910 was not an isolated event but was linked to developments in other aspects of the

‘ship-as-a-system’. Wooden hulls had gradually given way to iron hulls, the power source had

increasingly changed from sail to steam to marine diesel, and lighting and other on-board

devices had steadily become powered by electricity and electric motors. All of these changes

had an effect on the use of the magnetic compass as a guidance system which in addition to the

earth’s magnetic field was now affected by the extra magnetic fields introduced as a result of

the above developments. As well as navigation errors increasing in commercial shipping there

were problems for the navy. Improvements in naval gunnery meant that greater firing distances

could be achieved, thus magnifying any compass errors. Initially the attempts to find a solution

to this problem were to tinker with the existing technology. Magnetic compasses were mounted

at the top of masts where it was hoped the influence of rival magnetic fields would be minimal -

they were then read from below with the aid of a periscope!

Gradually, however, Sperry and other contemporary inventors started to work on more radical

solutions and, with the funds and incentive provided by an arms race, had come up with a

solution by the eve of World War I. This was the gyrocompass which was dependent on the

rotation of the earth, and was thus not affected by overlapping and competing magnetic fields.

This illustrates a model of an evolving technological system in which changes in some

components can occur faster than for others. This can mean that the performance of the more

slowly evolving component is rendered unsatisfactory and requires inventive effort, both to help

it catch up, and also to enable the whole system to continue to develop and progress.

But this system is not limited to technological components; there is also an organizational

dimension. Sperry found with several of his inventions, including the gyrocompass, that

21

established manufacturing firms were rarely willing to abandon their existing products in which

they had invested so much skill, knowledge and capital, to take the risk involved in developing a

new and unproven product or technology. The only solutions for inventors in this situation

were either to persuade an entrepreneur of the potential of an invention, or to become

entrepreneurs themselves (as we saw above with Bette Nesmith Graham) and develop their own

organization for manufacturing and marketing their invention. Later examples of inventor-

entrepreneurs included Ron Hickman and the Workmate (discussed further in Block 2) and

Alex Moulton and the small-wheel bicycle. Thus the technical change surrounding an invention

can often lead to an accompanying institutional change in which existing organizations adapt to

manufacturing the new technology, or new organizations emerge which are better equipped to

cope with innovation.

With hindsight it is easy to scoff at the apparent blunders of executives who turned down

eventual money spinners, but they often did so for entirely sensible reasons at the time. The

invention might have been outside their existing product range at a time when their existing

products were selling well and profitably; the production, marketing and commercialisation of

an unproven new idea is likely to be very costly and runs the risk of failure - it takes a certain

amount of courage to decide that an invention does have potential, particularly on the evidence

of a partially-developed prototype.

We will come back to this idea of 'picking winners' later in the Block.

Finally, as well as being part of a technological and organizational system, the innovation

process is also influenced by the wider context in which it occurs. There is a range of general

factors which can affect innovation. Geographical factors for example - different designs of

US steamboat were developed on the East coast and on the Mississippi, reflecting the local

conditions such as water depth and availability of fuel. This demonstrates that there is often no

one best engineering solution. Political factors can have an influence. For example, the

multiplicity of different electricity supply systems developed in 19th century London was due to

the city being organised on an ancient parish system, rather than for any reason of lack of

technical expertise in being able to provide a unified system. Socio-political factors can also be

influential. The US 'space race' to the Moon was launched in a speech by President Kennedy.

Initially it was a response to the success of the Soviet Union in launching the world's first

artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, in 1957 and achieving the first manned-flight by Yuri Gagarin in

1961. There was a fear in the US of the 'new frontier' of space being dominated by a political

and military rival, and an embarrassment at the very public failures of early US rocket

technology. The 'space race' led to a great deal of technological innovation, but its driving force

was a desire to maintain military dominance and prove the superiority of the US social and

political, as well as technological, systems over those of the (former) USSR.

22

ITQ

From your reading of Part 1, what do you think is needed for an invention to become asuccessful innovation?___________________________________________________________

I have picked out the following six key components:

(1) Need/Demand - which provides the motivation to search for a new idea or toturn an existing idea into reality. This need could be outside the inventor e.g.societal/market demand (clearly identified or latent), commission from a patron(individual/organisation) or an internal need - curiosity, a personal problem to be solved.

(2) Idea - either for a particular new object/product or for a new way to achievesomething. It requires imagination to envisage the potential of an inventive idea. It is alsoimportant to have an environment in which inventors are encouraged to pursue/developtheir ideas.

(3) Technology - the means by which a new product can be made, or a processcarried out. This can be by means of new technologies, improvements to existingtechnologies or technologies transferred from another field

(4) Money and Resources - there is a need for resources (finance, facilities) from arelatively early stage to help with the necessary development and improvement of thetechnology.

(5) Determination - ideas developed by inventors new to the field challenge thetechnological establishment and meet resistance. Thus an invention needs to build up acertain momentum, and be 'championed' by key influential individuals before itbecomes more widely accepted. In addition, there is a need for the willingness to takerisks by those who control the resources. Even the people in the market for an inventionneed persuading as to the benefits of the invention and its advantages over existingtechnology.

(6) Socio-economic - appropriate conditions to encourage innovation. Thesemight include the following: at the individual level the freedom to be able to think aboutimproving things in one's environment rather than having to focus one's energies andattention on survival; at the community level being able to associate with otherindividuals where an exchange of ideas might lead to an inventive outcome; at thesocietal level living in a society which encourages and rewards innovation, wheremarkets exist which are interested in buying innovative new products, and where themarket is ready to accept a particular innovation whose time has come.

In the next section we will go on to look more closely at the processes of invention and

innovation, and the various models which have been put forward to explain how the innovation

process works.

SAQ 1Given the definitions at the start of Part 1, how would you classify the following as aninvention or an innovation?

(1) BiC ball point pen(2) Flettner's 'rotor ship'(3) Carlson's patented electro-static copier(4) Xerox's 914 photocopier

23

SAQ 2How would you classify the following as examples of radical innovation or incrementalinnovation?

(1) Edison's phonograph(2) the laser(3) the fibre-tip pen(4) the electric light

SAQ 3Do you think the following are inventors, entrepreneurs or product champions?

(1) Thomas Edison(2) Battelle Memorial Institute (photocopier)(3) Bette Nesmith Graham(4) Henry Villard (electric light)

SAQ 4What are the six key components of a successful innovation process identified above?

24

PART 2 THE INNOVATION PROCESS

Having seen something of the range of sources of invention and different routes to innovation,and having identified some of the key components of the innovation process, let's look moreclosely now at what goes on at the heart of this process. What is actually involved in inventingsomething?

2.1 THE HEART OF INVENTION

There are two opposite views which attempt to explain the appearance of inventions:(i) the evolutionary view says that every new or improved artefact is based on those whichalready exist, thus every manufactured object can be seen as part of a sequence, itself connectedto other sequences which can be traced back in time towards the simplest of early humanartefacts. [The 'family tree' for the telephone can be traced back through developments intransistors, materials and manufacture, back to the telegraph, to communication over distance vialetters, flags, beacons.](ii) the revolutionary view says that inventions emerge fully developed from the minds ofgreat and gifted individual inventors who are responsible for major breakthroughs e.g. JamesWatt, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison.

As with all polarised views the truth is probably to be found somewhere in the middle! As soonas one looks more closely at any 'great' invention e.g. Watt's role in the invention of the steamengine, one sees that it was not the sudden, unprecedented breakthrough it might appear. Arange of inventors, engineers and craft workers were working on this technology before, duringand after Watt's (admittedly crucial) work on the condensing steam engine. Such individuals(often with the backing of financiers) were experimenting with improvements to variouscomponents of the steam engine and also vital improvements to the processes by which suchcomponents could be manufactured. Likewise, to argue that invention is solely the cumulativeeffect of small improvements as part of some inexorable historical process, is to ignore the roleplayed by individual inventors e.g. their ability to make imaginative connections betweenobserved phenomena and potential devices to harness previously unexploited aspects of thosephenomena - as we saw in Part 1 with Bell and Edison.

The economic historian Abbot P. Usher suggested a compromise which allowed for animportant role to be played by the individual inventor in the broad process of technological'evolution'. He put forward four key steps in the process of invention:1.Perception of the problem - recognition of an unsolved problem or one with an

unsatisfactory current solution2.Setting the stage - collecting information related to the problem3.Act of insight - a solution is found by a mental act that goes beyond the

act of skill normally expected of a trained professional in that field

4.Critical revision - the solution is fully explored and revised, with possible refinements due to new acts of insight.

25

Let's examine these key steps a little further.

1. Perception of the problem. There were a number of examples in Part 1 where peoplehad recognised an unsolved need (e.g. Percy Shaw) or one with an unsatisfactory currentsolution (e.g. Elijah McCoy). This activity of identifying a need to be met is a key step for thestart of the innovation process, but as we saw in Part 1 there are other possible starting points.One such starting point for invention is identifying possible new uses for existing products orprocesses. In such cases it is the perception of the technological possibilities and the marketopportunities which is a key first step. Nowadays many organizations spend time activelyseeking out new uses to which existing products and processes might be put as well asproblems that need to be solved with new inventions. In Block 2 you will be reading about theexample of the 'Post-it' notelet where the challenge for the company (3M) was to find a use fora new type of adhesive. In this case the 'problem' was one of existing technology in search of amarket need, rather then an established need requiring a new technological solution.

2. Setting the stage. This is the period when, following the identification of the problem,attempts are made to understand it better and to make a first stab at finding a solution. Thismight be a short process, or it could take years and involve a detailed search for information,experimenting with different solutions, even redefining the problem as a result of this activity.We saw earlier that in the case of Edison's incandescent electric light this process of setting thestage took around 12 months, between Edison's first perception of the commercial possibilitiesof such an invention, and his first prototype. However, the invention of the fluorescent light wasthe outcome of seventy years of 'setting the stage' research into fluorescence!

3. Act of insight. This step is at the very heart of invention. But some writers (Wallas,Lawson, and, perhaps familiar to some of you, Roy in T204 Block 3) have identified a vital stepbetween 'setting the stage' and the 'act of insight' - incubation. This is a period when theproblem is no longer being given conscious attention but has been put to one side, on purposeor not. But, despite appearances, the subconscious mind is hard at work. During this time,according to Roy, "the relaxed brain [is] repatterning information absorbed during the period ofpreparation often after receiving a new piece of information that is perceived as relevant".Suddenly a flash of inspiration or insight suggests a solution (or the means of achieving asolution) to the inventor.

These 'acts of insight' are not only dependent upon the state of mind of the inventor, however,

but also on the circumstances in which they occur. Arthur Koestler described this in connection

with the classic story of Archimedes, who had perhaps the most famous act of insight while

sitting in his bath. The image of the moment of invention is very familiar. Archimedes realised,

allegedly as he lowered himself into his bath, that there was a relationship between his weight

and the volume of water displaced. He became excited because he had found a solution to a

problem set for him by Hiero II, the ruler of Syracuse. Hiero had had a new crown made but

suspected that his metal workers had stolen some of the gold and substituted it with a gold-

silver alloy; thus he wanted to know if the crown was pure gold or partly silver. Archimedes, a

Syracusian mathematician and specialist in applied mechanics, realised that if the crown was

partly silver it would be less dense than pure gold, would be bulkier for its weight, and thus

26

would displace more water when immersed. Thus he had discovered a principle which would

help him to determine whether the king's crown was pure gold or a mixture of gold and silver.

Legend has it that Archimedes was so excited by his discovery that he leapt from his bath and

ran naked through the streets shouting “Eureka!” (I’ve found it!).

Koestler points out that at the critical moment Archimedes was able to make the connectionbetween two previously unconnected trains of thought which his mind was processingsimultaneously. Nobody before Archimedes had brought together those separate ideas, and ifthose particular circumstances had not pertained (thinking about the crown problem whiletaking a bath) that particular 'eureka' moment would not have occurred. (It might have occurredto someone else on another occasion, as the history of invention shows that many minds areoften working on the same problem e.g. Edison and Swan on the electric light, but it is possiblethat many such moments have passed unnoticed for want of the necessary conjunction ofinventive mind and propitious circumstances.) Koestler comments that rather than the mentalachievement being to draw that particular conclusion, the achievement was actually in bringingtogether the two apparently unconnected ideas - a process he calls 'bisociation'. But althoughthis is a classic case of what is called 'associative thinking', bisociation is not the only way toachieve an act of insight. There are other ways of bringing together associations of ideas,knowledge and techniques from different areas:

adaptation - is where a solution to a problem in one field is found by adapting an existing solution from another. For example, Karl Dahlman adapted the hovercraft principle embodied in land/sea vehicles for use in the first 'hover' lawn mower, the Flymo, in 1963.

transfer - is where an innovative technology, manufacturing process or material is transferred to another field to provide the basis for an invention. Part 1 above described how laser technology was transferred to a variety of different applications including surgery, welding and cutting metal, audio CD

combination - is where two or more existing devices are combined to produce something new. For example, the Toggle (see Figure) combines a screwdriver and two gauges of wire stripper - for the outer and inner cores of an electric cable. It was designed by a student of the predecessor to this course, T362 Design and Innovation, to combine into one the tools needed to fit an electric plug.

analogy - draws on similar situations to provide ideas for invention and design. For example, the Swiss engineer Georges de Mestral conceived the idea for Velcro in 1948 after returning from a walk to find seed pods stuck to his socks and to his dog. When he examined the pods under a microscope he saw how tiny hooks had caught in the loops of the wool. Using analogy he soon developed a method of reproducing the hooks and loops in woven nylon for use in clothing instead of buttons and zips. He called the product Velcro from a combination of velours (velvet) and crochet (hook), and the product went on to have many

other uses including medicine (for joining the chambers of an artificial heart) and the space programme (for securing objects in a weightless environment).

27

Such associations are often achieved as a result of a systematic search for new ideas. This'problem-focused' strategy is one typically used by scientists and engineers and involvesexploring and redefining the problem exhaustively before coming up with a solution. Adifferent approach, often adopted by designers, is to move fairly quickly towards an outlinesolution based on their own experiences and preferences, which is then tested against theproblem and modified as necessary to solve the problem more effectively. This less systematicand more directed approach is known as a 'solution-focused' strategy. But there is anotherimportant source of inventions and scientific discoveries which is neither systematic nordirected - chance.

We saw earlier how Bell's invention of the telephone and Edison's of the phonograph bothinvolved chance occurrences. The skill of the inventive mind is to recognise the significance ofsuch observations and to be able to make the connection between such chance occurrences andways in which they can be translated into inventions. Almost every invention contains in thehistory of its development an occasion when a chance observation has played a key part inmaking major progress. But invention still requires the presence of imaginative minds sensitizedto the features of particular technological problems and busy thinking about solutions, in orderto capitalise on the chance occurrences. As Louis Pasteur put it, 'Where observation isconcerned, chance favours only the prepared mind'.

This psychological dimension to invention is important. Most other aspects (including steps 1,2 and 4 above) can be, and usually are, influenced by economic incentives. The acts of insight,however, are bound up with the inventor's personal make up, objectives and motivations,thinking style and thought processes - in other words, with individual creativity. No matter whatthe economic incentive for coming up with an invention, an individual will not be able to achievethe necessary act of insight without possessing (or acquiring through training or practice) theappropriate creative/inventive skills.

Usher believed that such acts of insight are as important to minor incremental inventions as theyare to major radical inventions. The cumulative effect of incremental inventions can eventuallylead to the radical invention which is more familiar to us all. However, sheer numbers ofinventions do not guarantee a radical change in technology; for that to occur, "The key factor isalways the inventor's act of insight by which certain elements are chosen, combined ininnovative ways, and made to yield a solution" (Basalla, 1988).

"All revolutionary innovations appear after a while as trivial and obvious, and we marvel less atthe discovery itself, than at the apparently abysmal stupidity of the mental state preceding it:'How silly of me not to have seen it before'" (Koestler, 1949).

Thus the moment of realisation of the answer to a problem, the flash of inventive insight

portrayed by the 'Eureka' moment, is an important component of the inventive process. Without

it there would be no significant improvements to existing technology or its products. Although

acts of insight might come more readily to people already working in a particular area of

technology, the fact that such acts go beyond the acts of skill expected of professionals means

that it is sometimes possible for relative 'outsiders' to come up with important inventions. For

example, Laszlo Biro was a journalist when he invented the ballpoint pen, John Boyd Dunlop

28

was a veterinary surgeon when he invented the pneumatic tyre, and so on. Thus it is sometimes

possible for users of technology to come up with improvements or replacements to existing

technology when those already in the field see no need for change. However, such acts of

insight seldom lead to a fully-formed invention.

4. Critical revision. Once a solution has been obtained it is then necessary to explore the

extent to which it effectively solves the problem and, where necessary, revise it. Although more

attention has been given to the moment of inspiration during the 'act of insight' than to any other

stage of invention, it is this process of 'critical revision' which is usually the longest, most

difficult and costly stage. As is implied by Thomas Edison's famous saying "Genius is 1%

inspiration and 99% perspiration", the flash of insight needs to be coupled with hard work on

the details which enable a bright idea to be transformed into a viable invention. 'Outsiders' and

'Insiders' alike need the help of skilled professionals to overcome the inevitable technical

problems involved in this transformation. Every example of invention contains a period of

refinement of the original idea before a practical working prototype can be achieved. Like the

process of 'setting the stage', this critical revision might take a matter of months, as with

Edison's light, or years. There were four years between James Watt's idea for improving the

performance of Newcomen's steam engine by using a separate condenser to keep the cylinder

as hot as possible, and his incorporation of this idea in the first full-size engine in 1769. Watt

didn't have enough capital to devote his efforts full-time to solving the many technical problems

involved in turning his idea into an efficient working machine. In a moment of despair which is

familiar to inventors frustrated by the many obstacles in their path, he wrote "Of all things in life

there is nothing more foolish than inventing".

Not only is the stage of 'critical revision' necessary to move from the act of insight to a working

invention, it is also a key factor in the process of transforming the original invention into a

commercially viable innovation. Indeed, it was another six years before the first Watt steam

engine went into commercial use for draining a Midlands coal mine in 1775, ten years in all

after his first 'act of insight'. He was only able to achieve innovation thanks to his partnership

with a Birmingham manufacturer, Matthew Boulton, who provided the capital and the

entrepreneurial skills which Watt lacked, but which were needed to help develop and sell his

invention.

Many inventors have commented that having the idea is the easy part; making it work

(perfecting the technology) and then persuading others of its worth (that it meets a need) are

far harder tasks.

Exercise

From the very brief description of Carlson's invention of xerography given in Part 1, how doUsher's 'four key steps' fit that particular process of innovation?

Answer

29

1. Perception of the problem - Carlson was dissatisfied with existing methods of copyingdocuments by photography and by hand

2. Setting the stage - Carlson consulted existing patents and other information in a search for asolution to the problem

3. Act of insight - Carlson's 'act of insight' involved using techniques quite different fromconventional photography

4. Critical revision - Carlson's first electro-static copier was the outcome of almost 10 years ofdeveloping and refining the technology. This process of critical revision is still going on morethan 50 years after the launch of the innovation.

2.2 MODELS OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS

Having identified the inventive activity at the heart of the innovation process, let's consider some

of the other factors involved by looking at some of the models of innovation that have been put

forward to explain the overall process.

2.2.1 Technology Push model

The first dominant model of innovation was the ‘Technology Push’ model of the 1950s to mid

1960s. This is a simple linear model which suggests that the innovation process starts with an

idea or a discovery. Sometimes this is by a creative individual who has the knowledge and

imagination to realise its significance and the practical skills to transform the idea or discovery

into an invention. However, more often nowadays the starting point is basic scientific research, or

applied R&D in organisations. This then proceeds through design and development into a

product which can be manufactured effectively and economically and then sold on the market.

(See figure.)

The market is seen as a receptacle for the output of scientific research and invention; thus an

increase in basic and applied R&D should lead to an increase in innovation. Government support

for innovation in many countries consisted of bolstering science and the R&D ‘supply’ aspect.

But though the above model might describe part of the innovation process for some products, it

only tells part of the story. There are numerous examples of inventions which are good ideas,

scientifically or technologically sound and available to the market, yet fail to become successful

innovations. The notion that if an idea is good enough ‘technology push’ will help it to overcome

all obstacles to its innovation, is a romantic one, but unrealistic.

For example, the 'QWERTY' keyboard arrangement was developed by Christopher Latham

Sholes in 1873 to slow down the typist! The mechanical typewriters of the time often jammed if

two adjoining keys were struck rapidly in succession. Sholes rearranged the keys so that the most

commonly used letter sequences were spread out and thus slower to find. When typewriter

mechanisms became more efficient, the original justification for the QWERTY arrangement

disappeared. In 1932 Professor August Dvorak of the University of Washington used time-and-

30

motion studies to create a more efficient keyboard layout. The most frequently used letters,

(A,O,E,U,I,D,H,T,N and S) were placed on the 'home' row which could then account for around

70% of the typing, compared with 32% of QWERTY's 'home' keys. Dvorak also altered the

balance of keys controlled by the , normally weaker, left hand from 57% with QWERTY to 44%.

Despite the clear improvement brought about by these changes, until recently vested interest in the

existing design has successfully resisted the further development of this innovation.

Ergonomically-designed curved keyboards to reduce finger travel and strain are now beginning to

catch on (see Figure) but these still follow the QWERTY standard. Block 2 contains some more

examples of 'bright ideas' with apparently huge commercial potential yet which have not been

exploited. This makes a nonsense of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s saying that “If a man [...] make a

better mouse trap than his neighbour, though he build his house in the woods, the world will make

a beaten path to his door”. So if the market can be resistant to ‘good’ new design and

technology, what role does the market play in the innovation process?

2.2.2 Market Pull model

This model came to prominence in the late 1960s and early 70s as a reaction against the

technology push model. It suggests that the stimulus for innovation comes from the needs of

society or a particular section of the market. These might be needs perceived by an

entrepreneur or manufacturer, or they might be clearly articulated by consumers. According to

this model, a successful approach to innovation would be to research the market thoroughly

first, assess what needs exist, how far they are met by existing products and processes, and how

the needs might be met more effectively by means of a new or improved innovation. The theory

then is that once the appropriate technology is developed, a receptive market is assured because

the innovation process has been tailored to meet a definite need. Thus this model adds a stage

of exploring Market Need before the Invention stage of the Technology Push model above.

(See figure.) This approach might be characterised by the classic saying “Necessity is the

Mother of Invention”, or as expressed by one writer in this field, Pilditch (whom you will

encounter in Block 3), "Find a need, then fill it".

This saying sums up the view that the motivation behind inventive effort is the desire to satisfy a

particular need which exists in society. We need to travel independently, so the motor car is

invented. The above saying implies a static relationship between need and invention, but the

reality is much more dynamic. If it were static then once a need had been fulfilled by the

invention of a particular product or process then one might expect any further development to

stop. But of course it doesn’t - refinements, additions, sometimes amounting to re-invention

can take place. It might be argued that this is driven by a desire to ensure that an innovation can

better meet that need, but again this is not the whole story. People invent for a variety of

reasons, only one of which is to meet a need expressed by others. There has to be a motivation

for the individual inventor/innovator - intellectual curiosity (the desire to understand, to solve

problems), personal reward (financial, fame/social recognition).

31

“A search for the origins of the gasoline-powered motorcar reveals that it was notnecessity that inspired its inventors to complete their task. The automobile was not developed inresponse to some grave international horse crisis or horse shortage. National leaders, influentialthinkers, and editorial writers were not calling for the replacement of the horse, nor wereordinary citizens anxiously hoping that some inventors would soon fill a serious societal andpersonal need for motor transportation. In fact, during the first decade of existence, 1895-1905,the automobile was a toy, a plaything for those who could afford to buy one.” (Basalla, 1988)

Indeed, the ‘need’ for motor vehicles arose after not before their invention. This invention

opened up possibilities for transportation which had not previously existed and stimulated a

desire to share in the benefits which were offered when it became an innovation. And the very

existence of a new innovation can create previously non-existent needs leading to new

inventions. For example, one of the consequences of the invention and refinement of the motor

car has been the achievement of greater speeds and a large number of deaths, thus creating the

need for improved safety in automobiles. This has provided the incentive for inventing safety

improvements, windscreen wipers, seat belts, ABS brakes, air bags. These can be said to be

'market pull' innovations, but the market itself has been created by a great deal of technology

push.

There are also numerous examples of innovations which have been hugely successful without

being developed to meet a prior need. Sony's development of the Walkman personal stereo

cassette player was not in response to any need identified by market research. One of the co-

founders of the company was using a Sony portable stereo tape recorder and standard-size

headphones to listen to a cassette. He complained about the weight of this system to the

president, Akio Morita. Morita ordered his engineers to remove the recording circuit from one

of their small cassette recorders (the Pressman) and replace it with a stereo amplifier. In

addition he asked for very lightweight headphones to be developed. The headphones turned out

to be the biggest technical challenge in the project, and were the most innovative component -

everything else was a new application of existing technology. There was scepticism within the

firm as to the market appeal of a cassette player without a recording facility, but Morita pushed

through the idea. Almost from its launch the 'Walkman' was highly successful. As with many

innovative products, no amount of market research would have identified a specific need as one

did not exist. Success came from encouraging a latent need by providing people with an

innovative product they hadn't known they wanted. Once the product was launched onto the

market, however, the company responded to initial reactions by modifying the design to meet

emerging needs. For example, Morita had assumed it was less anti-social to include a second

headphone socket so that two people could share their listening experience. He had also

included a button-activated microphone so that the two listeners could talk to each other over the

music on a 'hot line'. When it became clear that the early users really valued this product as a

personal device, those extra features were removed. Subsequently an entire 'family' of personal

stereos was developed to meet the latent needs of particular sectors of the market which hadn't

known they needed a Walkman! Examples include the water-resistant and shock proof Sports

32

Walkman for active outdoor use. It might just as easily be said that “Invention is the Mother of

Necessity” in this and in many other cases of new technological products.

The fact that an important need exists is no guarantee that an invention will emerge to meet that

need. There are many examples of long-standing needs which have yet to be satisfactorily met

despite the efforts of many inventive minds e.g. cures for many medical conditions, safer road

transport, simplifying (or removing) the task of ironing. Moreover, some argue that the more

thorough and accurate the analyses of a market, the more similar will be the conclusions and

hence the products designed to meet these needs. Others point out that the notion of a coherent

market with a clearly identifiable set of needs is simplistic. In reality, there is a complex range

of sectors within the market for a particular product type. A very familiar example is the car

market, with separate sectors for the supermini, family saloons and estates, people carriers,

executive cars, sports cars, four-wheel drive and so on. Even within an apparently coherent and

focused sector, say the domestic consumer market for electric kettles, there is a wide range of

user needs, preferences etc. To suggest that consumers might be happy with one single design

of electric kettle to purchase would not be well received by manufacturers and their marketing

departments!

Some theorists argue that over-concentration on the marketing concept has led companies to

become pre-occupied with incremental and often trivial innovations at the expense of radical

breakthroughs, which are more likely to be achieved through ‘technology push’. Consumers

cannot demand products which have not yet been conceived, is the view of the proponents of

technology push. In the case of consumer products in particular, 'market pull' is more likely to

relate to the users' experience of the strengths and weaknesses of an innovative product which

has already been 'pushed' onto the market.

It is true that fulfilling human needs is an important incentive for inventors and innovators. This

is especially so for improvements to existing products, and innovations aimed at obvious 'needs',

such as safety (e.g. pilot ejector seats), health (new medicines), productivity (process

innovations), food supply (new strains of wheat and rice). So there is some truth in the view

that 'Necessity is the Mother of Invention'; but this is only part of the story. As we have seen

above, needs can be created by the emergence of an innovation. Indeed, if this were not the case

then we would not have the enormous diversity of artefacts and technologies that we have today.

So the ‘Technology Push’ and ‘Market Pull’ models identify important aspects of the

innovation process, but on their own they are too simple to account for the complexity of

invention and innovation.

A better way of making use of the crude polarity of Push/Pull is to think of them as a spectrum

with Push at one end and Pull at the other. In this way it can be argued that both push and pull

are present in any successful innovation. The push or pull explanation might apply only to the

origin of the idea, or from where, from a particular point of view, the idea appears to have been

33

generated. However, at different points in the development of an innovation, push or pull may

become more prevalent.

There will be further discussion of the concepts of 'need' and 'market pull' in Block 3 From Idea

to Market.

SAQ 5Which of the following innovations would you describe as predominantly arising from'technology push' and which from 'market pull'?(1) Tape recorder(2) Jet engine(3) Car air bags(4) Photocopier(5) High yielding varieties of wheat and rice(6) Computer numerically controlled machine tools(7) AZT drug treatment for HIV virus(8) Laser

2.2.3 Linear-Sequential (‘Coupling’) model

Freeman suggests that a more effective model for explaining the innovation process is the

‘coupling’ model - between science, technology and the market place. This model contains

feedback loops but essentially it is a sequential model.

Now read the File article “Innovation as a two-sided or coupling activity” by Christopher

Freeman in the Block 1 File, before returning to the SAQs and discussion below. You should

expect to spend between one and one and a half hours on the article, the related SAQs and the

discussion.

SAQ 6In Schmookler's analogy of innovation as a pair of scissors, what do the two bladesconsist of?

SAQ 7In Freeman's memorable sentence "Necessity may be the mother of invention, butprocreation still requires a partner", what is the 'partner'?

SAQ 8What does Freeman see as the crucial contribution of the 'entrepreneur' in the innovationprocess?

34

SAQ 9At what stage of the innovation process does Freeman think it is important to encouragethe 'coupling' process between science/technology and market needs?

SAQ 10What phrase used by Freeman suggests that he might support the view of innovationas an 'evolutionary' process?

SAQ 11What does Freeman see as three key implications of the 'coupling' model for thoseinvolved in innovation?

SAQ 12Why does Freeman see the innovation process as "apparently random, accidental andarbitrary"?

So Freeman's view of the innovation process is moving beyond the simple linearity of the 'push'

and 'pull' models. Although it still contains both elements, it introduces some sense of

interaction and growing complexity, with feedback loops and a variety of links both between

science, technology and the market place, and between innovating firms and the outside world.

Although it is true that innovation takes place over time, which is linear and sequential, and that

there is some logic in the notion of research and invention, design and development,

manufacture, adoption, diffusion and obsolescence as phases in a linear process, there are also

certain nonlinear characteristics which are important in the innovation process. For example,

while logic might suggest that innovation precedes diffusion, the reverse can be the case at the

same time, through adaptation and re-innovation. The process can be cyclical with no clear start

and finish points. And as Freeman suggested above, 'the imaginative association or

combination of ideas previously regarded as separate' which is at the creative heart of

innovation, can occur at any of the 'stages' of the process from 'first flash' of invention to

diffusion into use of an innovation. Also there is often a blurring between the stages; the

process is iterative and overlapping. For example, an inventor may get new ideas from the

operation of a prototype which might lead to modifications and improvements; unanticipated

problems may arise when a product is finally being used by purchasers which may require

redesign of some aspect, and possibly re-launch of a modified version of the innovation.

A model which attempts to combine some of the sequential aspects of the innovation process

with the nonlinear aspects is the 'Innovation spiral'. In this model, four main phases are

identified: invention or idea phase; development or technology phase; diffusion or demand

phase and maturity or widespread use phase. The invention phase concludes with a design, the

35

development phase with the launch of a product, the diffusion phase with the first post-launch

modifications and the maturity phase in re-innovation or scrap. (See figure.)

Roy (1983) has observed that the spiral embodies several ideas which are characteristic of the

innovation process. For example the involvement of an increasing number of people as the

innovation develops. "At the centre the ideas rest in the hands of a few individuals, but

progressively larger numbers of specialists are involved in development". It also embodies the

idea of diffusion: "the knowledge of, and influence of, a particular invention spreads out from

the centre in ever widening ripples, through society at large, until the ideas embodied in the

innovation become weak, inappropriate and outmoded. Circumstances, then, are ripe for new

ideas." At this stage existing products can be 'stretched', manufacturers can undertake re-design

or even re-invention, or there may be no alternative other than obsolescence.

SAQ 13Draw an Innovation spiral for the invention and development of the incandescent electriclight, as described in Part 1 above. How well do you think the example fits the model?

2.2.4 'Fourth' and 'Fifth' Generation Models

Roy Rothwell reviews the extent to which successive models of the innovation process have

attempted to capture the increasing complexity of that process over recent decades. He starts

with the simple linear "technology push" and "market (need) pull" models of the 1950s to early

1970s, and the 'coupling' model of the late 1970s and early 1980s (all described above). Then

he introduces what he calls the Fourth Generation 'integrated' model, which moves from a

perception of innovation as a series of sequential steps to one based largely on parallel

processes. This model is based on product development and innovation practices in leading

Japanese companies. (Figure X). Note that the figure only shows the innovation activities

within a firm. All the surrounding activities are similar to those in the coupling model. Finally,

he describes an extension of this into what he calls the Fifth generation 'Systems Integration

and Networking' model. This involves much strategic integration between different companies

collaborating with one another, using a network of electronic communications. He admits this

is not so much a model of existing reality but an idealised vision of the future of the innovation

process. Block 4 will ask you to read the whole of an article by Rothwell which explains his

views on successive models of the innovation process, and the issues it raises will be covered in

more detail there. In the meantime, I want you to read a brief extract from that article to get a

flavour of his ideas.

Now read the File article "Introduction and Conclusion" from "Successful industrial innovation:

critical factors for the 1990s" by Roy Rothwell in the Block 1 File before returning to the SAQs

and discussion below. You should expect to spend between one and one and a half hours on

the article, the related SAQs and the discussion.

36

SAQ 14Give two reasons why Rothwell considers the 'technology push' and 'need pull' modelsof innovation to be too simple.

SAQ 15Why does Rothwell consider it to be important in the case of a radical innovation fororganisations to "be sufficiently flexible (and willing) to adapt themselves better toaccommodate the requirements of the emerging innovation" rather than the other wayround?

SAQ 16What does Rothwell regard as the two key improvements in the fourthgeneration/integrated model as an explanation of the innovation process?

SAQ 17What does Rothwell regard as the key factors in the fifth generation/systems integrationand networking model as a representation of the innovation process?

So, Rothwell believes that accompanying rapid change in technology, the innovation process is

changing too; it is becoming more efficient, faster and more flexible and it is using a new

'electronic tool kit'. This tool kit is increasingly applied to process innovations within firms to

reduce costs, increase quality, tailor products to the needs of specific customers and so on. This

drive to improve manufacturing processes within a company is often called 'production pull', as

distinct from market pull innovations which result from external demand. The next section

examines the extent to which innovations in manufacturing play a key role in the overall

innovation process and contribute towards a context which can encourage innovation to

flourish.

As well as increasing in efficiency, at the same time the complexity of the innovation process

appears to be increasing, with more actors involved more deeply than before. Rothwell's 'Fifth

Generation' model attempts to convey the complexity of the innovation process and the real

world context in which it takes place - a context of commercial organizations within a complex

worldwide socio-economic and scientific-technological system. The next section starts by

examining this system and the way in which it affects and is affected by the processes of

invention and innovation.

37

PART 3 THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF INNOVATION

We saw at the end of Part 1 how the context in which innovation takes place can have a significant

impact on its chances of success or failure. For example, in the case of the development of the steam

engine, inventors and their support teams were important, but in addition contextual factors were at

work. The centralised factory system of organisation plus improvements in machinery required

increasing levels of power, greater than that provided by existing water-powered machinery. Such

factors created the climate which encouraged people to develop and improve the steam engine to meet

newly-emerging energy needs. These contextual factors, however, are not static but are constantly

shifting, developing and even changing in nature. This part starts by examining some of the general

changes in the context of innovation, particularly over recent years. It goes on to consider the changes

in a very important area of innovation which we have not examined in detail so far - the process by

which new products are manufactured.

3.1 THE THIRD TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION?

We have already seen that innovations can differ in their degree of technical change, and alsothe impact which they have. Some theorists have classified such differences into a hierarchy oftypes of innovation. This hierarchy is discussed in more detail in Block 6, but essentially itinvolves the following levels of innovation. At the lowest level Incremental innovations involvesmall-scale improvements at any stage of the innovation process, from an inventor modifying aprototype to a company making changes to an existing product in response to the experience ofusers. These innovations do not have a dramatic impact on the society which uses them, butthey do lead to steady improvements in the efficiency of manufacture, and the variety, qualityand performance of products. Radical innovations are more significant new steps which couldnot have arisen from incremental improvements to existing technology. They do have a morewidespread impact in that they often involve a combination of product, process andorganisational innovation. In Part 1 we saw how Chester Carlson's invention of xerographyultimately led to the establishing of a new photocopying industry. 'Technology System'changes occur when technological and organisational innovations combine to affect severalsectors of the economy. Thus 'automation' of many aspects of production and assembly hashad a significant impact on a range of industries. (This is discussed further in the reading"Innovation in the Manufacturing Process" by Taylor in the Block 1 File.) Finally there is alevel of change which has a widespread impact on almost every aspect of an economy, and evenon the way in which society organises itself. Some theorists call this a change in the 'techno-economic' paradigm, others a 'technological revolution'. This involves a change in the dominanttechnology which often characterises an era.

Daniel Bell has identified a 'third technological revolution' based on the technologies ofcomputing and telecommunications. He believes that this revolution is just as significant as thefirst, which was based on innovations in steam power and gave us industrialisation, and thesecond which was based on innovations in electricity and chemistry and gave us massproduction and synthetic materials of many kinds. Just as each of the previous technological

38

revolutions had significant implications for the way society organised itself (increasingcentralisation and urbanisation with the first revolution, and the spreading influence ofindustrialisation with the second), so he sees the third revolution as leading to a 'post-industrial'society which will need to be organised in different ways from those adopted so far. Critics ofBell say that he is wrong to claim that the changes brought about by technological innovationtowards the end of the twentieth century are truly revolutionary, but rather they are extensions oftrends whose evolution can be traced back into the history of technology and society's reactionto it. As you read through Bell's article bear in mind this dispute, and consider how much of arevolution you think has taken place as a result of the spread of these innovative technologies.

Now read the 'Introduction' and Part 1 'The Third Technological Revolution' from the File article "The

Third Technological Revolution - and its possible socio-economic consequences" by Daniel Bell, in the

Block 1 File before returning to the SAQs and discussion below. You should expect to spend

approximately one hour on the article, the related SAQs and the discussion.

SAQ 18What are the three major technological revolutions which Bell suggests have occurred inthe Western world in modern times?

SAQ 19What four technological innovations does Bell see as fundamental to the 'ThirdTechnological Revolution'?

It is difficult to argue with Bell's description of the capabilities of modern electronic technology.Some of the developments in the performance and application of computing andtelecommunications have been truly staggering compared with what existed even a few decadesago. But, as we saw in Part 1, there is a degree to which even radical inventions are just largersteps among a series of steady incremental improvements in existing technology; so it ispossible to argue that what we are experiencing is not revolution but rapid evolution. It doesseem to be true, though, that the pace of innovation is increasing. Take the case of computing.

The time between the first attempts to use 'artificial' aids to calculation (Babylonian algorithms and the

'abacus'), and the emergence of the first mechanical calculators in 17th century Britain, was

approximately 3500 years. Purely mechanical calculators continued to be developed for the next 150

years including Charles Babbage's 'Difference Engine', first prototyped in 1822 but never perfected,

despite three years of development partly funded by the government. Babbage's 'Analytical Engine' of

1835 was much more ambitious than existing mechanical calculators. He proposed that it should

incorporate a degree of automatic operation, external data memories, and conditional operation and

programming by means of the sort of punched card system invented by Jacquard in 1805 to control the

weaving patterns of his looms (a form of external storage used in computing up to the 1960s!). In

many ways it was the prototype for the first digital computer but it was still mechanical in its operation

and in fact was never completed in Babbage's lifetime. Electro-mechanical devices began to appear

39

towards the end of the 19th century - one of the first being Hollerith's 'electric totaliser' which was used

in the US census of 1890 to classify and record data. The next 50 years saw various attempts to

improve these devices, helped by key component inventions such as the thermionic valve in 1906. The

most famous of the electro-mechanical 'computers' is probably the 'Colossus' which was built during

the Second World War and used from 1943 at Bletchley Park in the UK to decode German messages.

In 1946 the first truly 'electronic' computer was built in the US to calculate ballistic trajectories.

Subsequent generations of the electronic computer have been based on a series of key component

inventions. The transistor in 1947, the integrated circuit in 1959 and the microprocessor in 1971 all

permitted a big jump in computing power accompanied by a reduction in size. Associated

improvements in manufacturing technology were vital in helping to achieve this miniaturization. The

first electronic computer in 1946 contained 18000 valves (known as vacuum tubes in the US) weighed

30 tonnes and occupied an area of 160 m2. In 1989 Unisys produced a single chip which contained 10

million transistors, and which measured 25 cm2. [ET - check on such figures for Intel's Pentium chip!]

Further developments are occurring rapidly in many areas of computing - for example the use of

photons (light particles) to carry data are said to permit calculation speeds a thousand times greater than

electronic data transfer. In the mid-1990s Cambridge University and Toshiba announced that they were

developing 'quantum devices' which operated at the scale of a few individual electrons. This would

make possible computers with operating speeds hundreds of times faster and memories a thousand

times larger than existing technology, and could form the basis of many 21st Century products. Also,

there are continuing developments in related aspects of computing such as mass memory storage

(moving from punched cards, through magnetic to optical storage devices); also in peripherals such as

Virtual Reality helmets and gloves, tactile screens, speech recognition and control, eye control,

handwriting recognition. Furthermore, improvements in software programmes have made it easier for

non-specialists to use computers without having first to spend time learning a programming language;

by this means access to this powerful technology can be increased.

In the area of telecommunications too, a huge number of inventions has taken place since the first coded

message was transmitted down a wire in the 1830s (by various people including the British physicist

Sir Charles Wheatstone and the American Samuel Morse). Bell's invention of the telephone in 1876

was followed by the radio telephone in 1900 which used radio waves for communication rather than

wires. This became portable in 1979 with the launch of the first mobile cellular phone. The Telex

made it possible to send written messages along telephone lines, the first photograph was transmitted in

1906, and in 1924 Bell Labs developed a phototelegraphy system. These were the forerunners of the

fax machine developed in the 1970s. Digitalisation and the use of fibre optic cables since the 1980s

have permitted vast increases in the transmission capacity both for voice and data communication. Part

4 contains more on the factors affecting the development of the fax machine.

The speed of development of these technologies is such that a description of the 'leading edge' will be

out of date by the time these words are printed, let alone a few years after publication. You will no

40

doubt be aware of more recent developments as you read this, and will understand some of the

implications, identified by Daniel Bell, which these innovations have for the people who use them and

the society in which they operate.

SAQ 20What three general kinds of societal organisation does Bell identify as co-existing at theend of the twentieth century?

SAQ 21What does Bell see as the key characteristics of 'post-industrial' society?

Now read Part 2 'The Post-Industrial Society' and Part 3 'Social Geography and Infrastructures'from the File article "The Third Technological Revolution" by Daniel Bell in the Block 1 Filebefore returning to the SAQs and discussion below. You should expect to spend approximatelyone hour on the article, the related SAQs and the discussion.

Bell is clear on the point that he believes the 'post-industrial' society is not an extension ofexisting trends but rather something radically new. However, he believes that the new structuresthat accompany such a society do not replace existing structures immediately, but for a periodthe 'new' and the 'old' co-exist, adding to society's complexity. So if he is correct, then themajority of us won't necessarily experience a sudden change in the nature of society as weprogress to the post-industrial state, but rather a gradual change. The character of work willchange though, as we move further from the manufacturing focus of the first two revolutions tothe service focus of the third technological revolution based on process innovation and controlof information rather than the physical manufacture of products. Indeed, information can beseen as the latest commodity which is being manipulated by the new computing andcommunications technologies, to the extent that the label usually applied to sum up this techno-economic paradigm is 'Information Technology' (IT)

SAQ 22What changes does Bell suggest have taken place in the role of the individual inventorin this 'post-industrial' society?

SAQ 23What does Bell suggest are the implications for social organisation of the changesinvolved in a 'post-industrial' society?

The developments in computing and telecommunications described above, seem to confirm the idea of

Bell (and others before him) that the role in invention of the 'talented tinkerer' has reduced in

significance in the last half of the twentieth century. Innovation is said increasingly to rely on

breakthroughs in theoretical knowledge and scientific understanding for which access to the resources

and facilities provided by government or commercial research labs is vital, Also, it is rare, in an era of

41

increasing specialisation, that one individual can possess the range of knowledge necessary to lead to a

scientific or technical breakthrough and its exploitation in new products and processes - team work is

increasingly important in modern invention and innovation. This is not to say that individual inventors

do not have a role to play in making incremental improvements to products and processes. Indeed, in

Block 2, which examines the role of individuals in invention and innovation, there are late 20th century

examples of individual 'lone inventors' apparently being responsible for 'breakthrough' inventions in a

particular field. It is usually the case, however, that they have made the first faltering steps towards an

innovation which, if it is to reach the market, requires the sort of development that is only possible with

a team of people and access to resources and facilities beyond the means of any one individual.

Increasingly it is unlikely that in the future 'radical' breakthroughs (such as those achieved in the 19th

century by Alexander Graham Bell with the telephone, or Thomas Edison with the phonograph) will be

achieved largely through the work of one person.

As Daniel Bell points out, many of the key inventions at the end of the 20th century are derived from

mathematics and science.

But while there is some truth that scientific discoveries have become increasingly important to 'modern'

innovation, it is a little harsh to dismiss earlier technological breakthroughs as the result of 'talented

tinkerers' - that is to demean the role of science. We have already seen examples in Block 1 so far of

the role played in nineteenth century invention and innovation by science, which was still in a relatively

early stage of its development. Babbage was a Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge at the time he

proposed his 'Analytical Engine', the development of the incandescent light bulb and ultimately the

electricity supply which powered it and numerous subsequent innovations was made possible by earlier

key scientific research by Volta, Faraday, Wheatstone and others. "Throughout the entire process of

industrialization and including its present post-industrial stage, the development of science and

technology has consistently played the part of prime mover. The increasing preponderance of the

knowledge society in post-industrial society is merely the end result of this process" (Tominaga, 1971).

Bell also focuses his attention on the impact which innovation in communication is having on the way

in which society is organised. Communications have become one of the major types of 'infrastructure'

that tie society together and make possible transactions and exchanges between people. He points out

that it is beginning to replace transportation as a major means of connection because thanks to

technological innovation, it is becoming cheaper without involving any loss of capacity or speed. Thus

decentralisation is possible - firms can relocate to cheaper suburban areas, can separate manufacturing

plant and headquarters should that be in their interests, some people can even work from home, without

losing the advantages which used to accompany centralising all the services necessary to an economy.

As with producers of goods and services, so with the market. Bell points out how markets for certain

commodities, such as capital and currency, no longer have a physical location but are abstract

'networks'. In the case of many other commodities their supply and demand is communicated through

this network (telephone, fax, satellite communications), and production is organised using many of the

42

new communications technologies (computer-aided design, computerised stock systems, computer-

controlled manufacture).

But to what extent is the character of work and social life changing in the face of this 'third

technological revolution'? And how 'revolutionary' are the changes brought about by such innovation?

There is certainly evidence that changes are taking place. A 1995 report The Shape of Work to Come

found that out of nearly 300 companies in the UK employing 2 million staff, 13.6 per cent of

organisations employed 'teleworkers' - staff working at least part of the time at home using computers

and modems. Two years earlier a Department of Employment survey had put the figure at 5 per cent.

A majority of the organisations surveyed had undergone major changes in working practices with the

introduction of 'flexible working' together with an increase in the use of staff on temporary or fixed-

term contracts and sub-contracted labour. However, this was thought to be as much a result of

competitive pressures to reduce costs as to the impact of new technology, although the two are related

as the introduction of IT is usually accompanied by the possibility of reducing staff.

The communications 'revolution' has given us the Internet, a world-wide network of people

communicating electronically, and on-line services such as home shopping, banking, video and music-

on-demand, and multi-media information services. But how significant is the impact of all this

innovation? Is life nowadays completely different to life before computers? Block 6 suggests that

computers permit us to carry out existing activities in new ways, rather than create new activities; that on

balance IT is 'a labour-saving, rather than a work-creating activity'. Examples from Part 1 suggest that

innovations take time to diffuse into widespread use. The 'information super highway' is being travelled

by a relatively small number of people so far (an estimated 200000 in the UK in 1995). Only time will

tell what impact it will have eventually, but evidence from previous innovations suggests the change is

more likely to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.

Bell sums up all of this as leading to "a widening of the arenas, the multiplication of the numbers of

actors, and an increase in the velocity and volatility of transactions and exchanges". The existing

industrial system has evolved over the past one hundred years to supply the needs of 'mass-production'

based societies. Faced with a 'third industrial revolution' which has begun to change the scale of human

activities in the last quarter of the 20th century with an increase in the power, scope and flexibility of

computers and telecommunications, it is perhaps hardly surprising that the industrial system needs to

go through a period of major adjustment.

Now read Part 4 'The Social Organisation of Production' from the File article "The ThirdTechnological Revolution" by Daniel Bell in the Block 1 File before returning to the SAQs anddiscussion below. You should expect to spend approximately half an hour on the article, therelated SAQs and the discussion.

43

SAQ 24What three groups of people does Bell suggest helped create the modern industrialsystem?

SAQ 25Bell suggests that industrial capitalism though well suited for a mass-production society,is increasingly dysfunctional in a 'post-industrial' world. What reasons does he give?

As Bell points out, interwoven with innovative technological developments in products are innovations

in process technology, in manufacturing systems, and also in the way in which innovation is organised

and managed. Among other things Block 4 will be examining the organization of innovation - what

organizational structures are best suited to the production of innovative products, and how organizations

can encourage innovative ideas to flourish. Increasingly all of these aspects of innovation are becoming

interdependent.

So, finally in this section on the changing context of innovation, let's consider the innovations in the

manufacturing process which Bell identifies as taking us into a new era. In the light of Bell's ideas, as

you read through the last part of this section consider to what extent you think the latest process

innovations are evidence of a transition to a new 'post-industrial' society, or an extension of the long

term process of industrialisation.

3.2 INNOVATIONS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS

The ability to make a new product to the optimum quality specifications at the lowest cost and in the

shortest time has been the general goal of manufacturers since the start of the First Industrial

Revolution. The means by which this goal has been achieved have developed as techniques, materials

and even the organisation of technology itself have evolved. In fact, not only has the transformation of

the manufacturing process enabled many inventions of increasing complexity to reach the market and

become successful innovations, the manufacturing process itself has been the subject of much

innovation. Thus, the process of manufacturing innovative products or devices is a key part of

innovation.

There are four basic types of production system used in manufacturing:

One-off or bespoke production

Batch production

Assembly-line production

Continuous production.

Different types of component and product are made using these production systems depending on

whether flexibility is required to produce different designs, and on the production volume required.

Large buildings and ships, for example, are usually produced as one-off products: many engineering

44

components and industrial goods are made in batches of various sizes using a mixture of general-

purpose and dedicated equipment; consumer products such as washing machines and cars are usually

made on dedicated equipment by assembly-line production; and continuous production in a dedicated

plant is mainly used for making products such as chemicals or textiles which may not be identifiable as

individual artefacts at that stage, although subsequently they may form the basis of a product.

However, while there are modern-day examples of all four of these types of production system, they

also reflect historical 'progress' from a one-off, individual-centred craft process common 200 years ago

with workers directly involved with the product, to an increasingly-remote, computer-controlled,

assembly-line/continuous process becoming more common nowadays. It is this transition which we

will examine now.

Now read the File article 'Innovations in the Manufacturing Process' by Ernest Taylor in theBlock 1 File before returning to the SAQs below. You should expect to spend between two andtwo and a half hours on the article and the related SAQs.

SAQ 26Which of the four general types of production system identified at the beginning of thissub-section are best suited for manufacture of the following products?(i) a single 'designer' chair(ii) an aircraft carrier(iii) a power station generator(iv) an electric locomotive(v) a personal microcomputer(vi) a ball-point pen(vii) petroleum

SAQ 27What innovations introduced by the English system of manufacture encouraged greateraccuracy and precision in manufacture?

SAQ 28What were the key innovative characteristics of the 'American System' of manufacturewhich permitted huge increases in productivity over the 'English System'?

SAQ 29What further improvements in productivity were achieved by Taylor's 'ScientificManagement' and by Ford's innovative assembly-line manufacturing process?

SAQ 30What improvement was achieved by the system of Statistical Process Control?

45

SAQ 31What advantages for manufacturing were introduced by the system of NumericalControl?

SAQ 32What are the advantages made possible by Flexible Manufacturing Systems?

SAQ 33Which of the four types of production system identified at the beginning of this sub-section would be appropriate for CIM and an 'automatic factory'?

SAQ 34What were the implications for workers, management and the nature of work, of thechanges brought about by each new 'epoch'?

So we've seen how process innovations are just as important as product innovations. The recentdevelopments in process innovation, which might in time lead to the spread of the automaticfactory, might seem 'post-industrial' compared with earlier manufacturing methods. However,the File article on Innovations in the Manufacturing Process has shown that they are the lateststage in the steady evolution of industrial manufacturing. The article also discussed theincreasing importance of standardisation for the mass manufacturing process. Standards havebecome a key constituent of the innovation process, both providing guidance to themanufacturer on the expected quality and performance of a new product or process, and thusoffering reassurance to the user that the product has been well tested before being launchedonto the market.

3.3 STANDARDS AND THEIR ROLE IN INNOVATION

Standards were originally related to units of measurement. The first 'standard' was the Egyptian Royal

Cubit which was made of black granite and was said to be equivalent to the length of the Pharoah's

forearm plus palm. This was also subdivided into finger, palm and hand widths - one 'small cubit' was

equivalent to six palms. But because the forearm was the master reference this meant that the 'cubit'

varied in different parts of the world. Over thousands of years agreement over units of measurement

gradually spread. It was really industrialisation that brought a pressing need for precise standards of

measurement, of parts and of manufacturing processes. The File article 'Innovations in the

Manufacturing Process' explored the spread of standardisation in manufacture. Essentially the incentive

to standardise was economic. Standardised parts and methods of production meant that products could

be made more accurately and efficiently, and the user could rely on their quality and performance with

greater confidence. Furthermore, maintenance and repair could be carried out more easily and cheaply

by the replacement of one 'standardised' part with another. An early set of standards for the

manufacture of a product were established in connection with steam boilers. Victorian engineers

46

produced boilers of various shapes and sizes and thus different performance characteristics. This

resulted in uncertainty over how a particular boiler would perform and there were many boiler

explosions and some deaths.There was pressure from insurance companies to reduce such risks by

persuading engineers to conform to given standards for the manufacture of boilers, and insurance cover

was made conditional on compliance with manufacturing 'standards'. In 1901 the British Standards

Institution was founded to oversee the establishing of national standards for the manufacture of a range

of products. One of the first British Standards was for tram rails; this led to a reduction in the number

of different rails manufactured from 75 to 5. During the First World War standards were established

which enabled the manufacture of planes to be made faster and more efficient and the 'product' more

reliable. And during the Second World War the standards for the manufacture of tins saved 40000 tons

of steel a year. At present there are around 13000 British Standards. Many products in different

countries nowadays are required by law to be tested against particular safety and performance standards

before they can be offered for sale to the market. For example the British Standard Specification

document for '13 amp fused plugs and switched and unswitched socket-outlets' (BS 1363: 1984)

consists of more than fifty pages of specifications for the design, construction and performance

characteristics of each component and details on how to test a product for compliance with the standard.

The BSI 'Kitemark' (itself a trade mark) shows that a product was initially and is regularly tested

against appropriate standards. It has become a symbol of safety and quality for any product which

carries it.

Increasingly the acceptance of certain standards (such as for the audio cassette in the 1960s, the

Compact Disc in the 1980s, and a range of new technologies) has helped manufacturers to avoid

wasteful duplication. In the past there has often been a period of intense rivalry between manufacturers

striving to have their technology accepted as the 'standard'. Such confrontations have sometimes been

so intense that they have been labelled 'format wars', and examples have included the VHS/Betamax

struggle for the video standard, and (in 1995) the emerging CD/mini-CD/digital compact cassette

rivalry for audio and data storage. Such battles can be fierce because the economic rewards of having

one's own technology established as the International Standard are enormous; just as the wasted

production, development and marketing costs for the 'loser' might be financially disastrous. You may

well be aware of more recent examples of such conflicts. Increasingly nowadays, however, much effort

is devoted by groups of manufacturers, before expenditure on innovation has gone too far, to agree

International Standards and save themselves the expense of a 'format war'.

3.4 CONCLUSION

Bell argues that the revolutionary developments in computing and telecommunications technology are

pushing Western industrialised countries at least, into a 'post-industrial' society. This is a society where

knowledge is a key commodity, information handling, processing and control are key activities, and

where innovation is based less often on inventive individuals having 'bright ideas' and increasingly on

teams of people making scientific discoveries or pushing back the boundaries of theoretical knowledge.

The innovation process in this 'post-industrial' society is further characterised by an increase in the

47

diversity of new products and the rapidity of their obsolescence. To some extent this has been made

possible by technologies such as CAD, NC, CAM which, at the end of the 20th century, have enabled

the rapidly changing needs of a complex market to be met by more flexible and easily adaptable

manufacturing processes. This is Rothwell's Fifth Generation model of the innovation process with its

associated 'electronic tool kit', described in Part 2 and Rothwell's File article. In addition to the

increasing volume of innovation, Bell sees technological innovation as leading to a change in the nature

of human interaction, permitting more decentralisation of activities and communication between vast

networks of people, and the increasing importance of human services as a wealth-creating activity.

Finally, we have seen that there is some dispute as to whether we are witnessing a transition into a

radical new 'post-industrial' society or an incremental increase in the rate of industrialisation. It is

difficult to be certain when we are still in the middle of many of the changes. You saw in Part 1 how it

was difficult to be precise about certain definitions of terms, such as when a 'creative idea' becomes an

'invention', whether an innovation is 'incremental' or 'radical'. Likewise opinions differ as to whether a

cluster of radical innovations constitutes a new 'techno-economic paradigm' or 'technological

revolution'. Bell identifies three 'revolutions', so far. In Block 6 you will encounter discussion of such

clusters of radical innovations as forming a 'wave' of industrialisation (sometimes known as 'Kondratiev

waves' after the Russian economist who first identified worldwide long cycles of economic activity); but

we are said to be experiencing the fifth Kondratiev wave at the moment based on innovations in

microelectronics and biotechnology. Whatever the number of 'revolutions' in the past, the long-term

historical view would seem to suggest that the overall process is 'evolutionary'.

Despite the increasing complexity of the innovation process and the context in which it takes place, the

factors which influence the chances of a particular invention becoming a successful innovation have

remained fairly constant. Put simply, success in innovation can be guaranteed if a particular invention

embodies an ingenious idea, excellently realised in a well-designed product or process, which helps to

meet a pressing need (or create a new need) by doing something better (e.g. cheaper, quicker, easier)

than existing products or processes, and which can command enough resources to be developed,

produced efficiently and made available for purchase at a price which will make it attractive to the

market! Sounds easy?

The next section considers the factors which affect success and failure in innovation.

48

PART 4 SUCCESS IN INNOVATION

In Part 3 we saw how innovations take place in a social, economic, political and cultural context.We saw from Bell's article how new technology can help shape that context, by the way inwhich society reacts to opportunities created by innovation. However, the context in whichinnovation takes place and the way in which competing technologies interact with thesecontextual factors, can also have an important influence on the success or failure of innovations.

4.1 'WINNING' TECHNOLOGY

We saw in Part 1 that innovations often have to compete for success with rivals (theatmospheric railway with conventional steam locomotion, for example) before they can become'winning' technologies. Let's look briefly at one of the most successful innovations of our time,the gasoline-fuelled internal combustion-engine powered motor car. There seems to have beenan inevitability about its success. But was its emergence as a 'winning' technology so inevitable?

Exercise

As you read the extract by Basalla on ‘Steam, Electric and Gasoline Vehicles’, note down any

factors which seem to have influenced the success and failure of the innovations concerned.

Now read the File article in the Block 1 File "Steam, Electric and Gasoline Vehicles" byGeorge Basalla: before returning to the Exercise answer below. You should expect to spendapproximately one hour on the article and the related Exercise.

Answer

I have identified the following factors contributing to success or failure in innovation as

discussed by Basalla:

1. Attention and investment is often focussed on existing successful technologies (e.g.

railroads) thus delaying the development of alternatives.

2. Parallel development is required in related aspects of the same innovation ‘system’ e.g.

improving the quality of public roads. (These are known as 'complementary assets' by Teece

(1988). Remember the example of Edison and the lighting system in Part 1?)

3. Technological advantages (e.g. comfort, cleanliness, simple construction, easy

maintenance of early electric cars) are insufficient on their own to guarantee success for an

innovation if it is less successful at meeting key needs of the majority of potential buyers

(electric cars were expensive to buy, own and operate, with a limited cruising range). In

innovation, low purchase price often outweighs technological advantages for most purchasers.

4. Image is important in the acceptance of innovations - and ‘old fashioned’ image (steam

power) can reduce the attractiveness to buyers.

49

5. Enthusiastic product champions are important in giving momentum to the development

of an invention into an innovation. Without as many such champions the steam engine was less

successful in competing with the gasoline engine.

6. An efficient manufacturing process is required to enable a reliable product to be

produced in sufficient numbers to ensure mass availability and low purchase price, at least for

mass-market products. Thus Ford’s new mass-production assembly lines were able to flood

the market with low cost gasoline-powered cars, while steam-powered vehicles continued to be

made in small numbers by a relatively expensive craft process.

7. Managerial and organizational skills are needed to produce an innovation in quantity

and distribute it widely enough to improve the chances of commercial success.

8. Geographical factors can be important in the early stages of the development of an

innovation. The industrial and natural resources of a particular region can make it well suited as

a location for the manufacture and continued improvement of an innovation. Basalla cites this

as a reason for the mass-production of the gasoline-powered car in the US Midwest with its

access to appropriate materials and fuel, and its large distances which could be covered better by

the gasoline car than the electric or steam vehicles. However, these factors were less significant

in the development of the gasoline-powered car in other parts of the world such as Europe.

Thus Basalla argues that at the early stages of development of motor vehicles, although electricpower suffered from lack of suitable batteries, steam engines might have become dominant if adifferent set of factors (technical, economic, social, cultural etc.) had been operating. There issometimes a thin dividing line between success and failure.

Is it possible to identify a checklist of 'success factors' which will enable us to predict whether

an invention will go on to become a successful innovation?

4.2 CHECKLIST OF 'SUCCESS FACTORS'

In 1890, when asked to give a list of requirements for success in innovation, Thomas Edisonsaid, "A good imagination coupled with a lot of horse sense, great application, and absolutedetermination never to be discouraged". Over a hundred years later these requirements are stillneeded, but as we've seen so far in this Block, there is more to it than that! What follows is not adefinitive list but it does provide some criteria by which to judge likely success. You should beable to add factors to the list based on your own experience, or as you read through the rest ofthe course, or as you do your project work.

Individual Factors (The Inventor) (see Block 2)

- important innovations usually emerge from putting together previous ideas and technology ina new way. The inventor must have the creative ability to make such unusual connections andthe imagination to recognise their potential.

50

- single-minded determination is important, but sometimes compromise is necessary (there is adanger of an inventor becoming fixated on the technical detail of the invention and failing toappreciate the sometimes conflicting requirements that an innovation must fulfil in order tosucceed).

- the inventor often needs to be willing to adapt the invention to meet changing manufacturingand market requirements.

- a successful innovator must not only be a good inventor but must also have someentrepreneurial abilities to the extent of being able to sell the idea to those with the financenecessary to develop it further. Too many inventors are bound up with their ideas to takeaccount of commercial and manufacturing requirements.

Technology Factors (The Invention) (see Blocks 2, 3 and 4)

- the invention must offer obvious and significant advantages over existing products orprocesses e.g. cheaper to make and buy, does the job better, easier to use, provides somethingnot previously possible.

- the invention should be based upon technically and scientifically sound principles

- the invention's performance should be acceptable to the user i.e. does the job it's designed for,reliable, safe

- the design must be capable of being produced economically

- suitable materials and techniques for making it must be available

- if the invention interacts directly with human users, it should be ergonomically correct and ofacceptable appearance, easy to maintain and use

- it is more likely to be commercially successful if it is designed to be adaptable to differentuses ('robust') rather than too highly optimised and inflexible ('lean')

- it is risky to launch an innovation to compete with an already well-established product orprocess.

Organizational Factors (The Manufacture) (see Blocks 2 and 4)

- there must be support for the invention from key influential individuals ('Product Champions')able to overcome resistance from within the organisation (e.g. the 'Not Invented Here'syndrome; vested interests in existing products or processes; a reluctance to take financial risksby investing in unproved invention) and from outside (e.g. from distributors, retailers,customers) by persuading doubters of the superiority of the invention

- an appropriate level of finance must be available to develop the invention into a practical,marketable product

- process innovation is important to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of manufacture,and thus to reduce the price of the product; economies of scale can also contribute to cost andprice reduction

51

- there are forms of organization which can encourage invention and innovation e.g. byproviding opportunities for creative teamwork

- it is often in the interests of manufacturers to agree to common 'standards' for manufacture, toavoid the costs and risks of unnecessary competition.

Social, Economic, Political, Cultural Factors (The Market) (see Blocks 2 and 3)

- the innovation must meet an existing or latent demand

- an innovation may only become acceptable to the mass market when its early deficiencies areremoved through further invention and innovation

- the context for innovation should be favourable e.g. a company constantly trying to cut costswill be more receptive to a process innovation which reduces the cost of manufacture rather thana product innovation which requires setting up a new production system

- the innovation should be of acceptable cost to the manufacturer and price and value to thecustomer

- the innovation should be appropriate to social and cultural conditions (e.g. for the bicycle,growing economic prosperity and demand for increased mobility encouraged its development inthe late 19th century following its invention a few decades earlier; fuel shortages in the 1950sduring the Suez crisis led to the invention of the Moulton-type small wheeler, and itsassociation with fashionable products of the 1960s (e.g. mini-cars, mini-skirts) meant that it waswell placed to play a part in the revival of the cycle trade which occurred in the mid-1960s)

- sometimes government legislation can provide the incentive for innovation. Increasinglystringent legislation in the US, Europe and Japan concerning vehicle emission levels hasencouraged vehicle manufacturers to undertake R & D into innovations in propulsiontechnology (such as more efficient batteries for electric vehicles, regenerative braking systems,hybrid internal combustion-electric motors), and into emission control technology such ascatalytic convertors.

Block 5 examines in more detail the political factors which can affect the market for innovation.

Now let's consider how well the 'Checklist of Success Factors' applies to the development of aninnovation which was first invented over 150 years ago but which has only achieved widespreaddiffusion very recently - the fax machine.

EXERCISE

As you read through this, admittedly brief, account of the development of the fax machine, thinkabout how each of the four categories of 'Success Factor' (Inventor, Invention, Manufacture,Market) has played a part in this particular innovation process.

The Fax

The first patent on an electrochemical recording telegraph was applied for in 1843 by a Scottish

inventor Alexander Bain (who had also invented the first battery-driven electric clock three years

earlier). He developed a working prototype in which a stylus sent a signal along a wire when

making contact with the raised parts of metal type. At the other end, the signal pulses were

52

passed through another stylus moving in synchronisation across chemically-treated paper,

causing it to turn black with each pulse reproducing an image of the original type! However,

Bain realised that this method of sending messages was much slower than existing Morse

Code, so he didn't develop it further. In the 1860s a commercial service opened sending

documents between Paris and Lyon using a device called the Pantelegraphe, invented by Caselli.

But the pace of business life meant that there was no great demand for such an invention; it was

abandoned after four years. Both these devices employed a pendulum-controlled stylus, the

transmitter making and breaking an electric circuit as it passed across the original, and the

receiver mimicking this action. However, a major technical problem was to synchronize the two

pendulums and the action of each stylus particularly across any distance. Around the time that

Caselli's apparatus was being abandoned, a discovery was being made which would lead to a

new method of generating a signal which did not require complicated synchronisation. This

was Willoughby Smith's discovery of the photoelectric effect, whereby the electrical resistance

of selenium, and subsequently other semiconducting metals, was shown to fall when exposured

to light. Thus through the development of light-sensitive switches a signal could be switched on

and off by reflected light as a sensor passed across a black and white image. One of the first

successful uses of this method was in 1906 when a German physicist, Arthur Korn, transmitted

a photograph of the German Crown Prince. This eventually led to the first major commercial

use of this process, for transmitting photographs for newspaper publication - known as the 'wire

photo', it had achieved widespread use in the newspaper business by the 1920s. There were still

technical problems, dedicated telephone lines had to be used. Furthermore, the telegram and

teleprinter already offered an acceptable method of sending written messages. Although these

devices usually worked between post offices, and required a courier to take the message on its

final leg to the receiver, this was not perceived as a problem in the absence of better methods! It

was not until after electronics began to improve after the Second World War that 'telefax'

desktop transceivers became available in offices. The first of these machines took six minutes

to transmit a page over public telephone lines. They were also expensive, and the machines of

different manufacturers were incompatible - sender and receiver had to have the same make of

machine. Attempts to establish an international standard began in 1960. Although each

manufacturer wanted its own technology to become the standard, none were considered good

enough by the national telephone companies. There were several stages of standardisation, but

it was not until 1980 that a truly international digital standard was established. Even after

decades of use in the newspaper business, few could have predicted the way in which the fax

exploded onto the ordinary business market in the late 1980s. Several factors came together

around that time to bring this about - improvements in the product with the introduction of

digital technology increased greatly the speed and accuracy of transmission; the superiority of

the fax for sending handwritten messages in Japanese (whose language used over 2000

characters while the teleprinter code could only cope with 56) meant that the Japanese put much

effort into improving the technology; improvements in the manufacturing process, together with

53

economies of scale as the market began to take off, combined to bring the price down to a level

where most businesses (and subsequently ordinary consumers) could afford to buy; a cultural

climate developed which valued immediacy in its communications (overnight deliveries,

couriers); the establishing of international standards in 1980 increased the range of other

machines with which it became possible to communicate; and fax machines meant that existing

documents could be transmitted automatically by unskilled operators rather than relying on the

expertise of keyboard operators, as with telegrams and teleprinters.

Discussion

The Inventor - the description doesn't give many clues about this category, but it doesn't conveythe impression of 'single-minded determination' which is clearly important, particularly in theearly stages of invention. In the 1980s though, the determination of the Japanese to develop thetechnology was clearly a significant factor in the eventual success of the fax.

The Invention - there were early technical weaknesses at each new stage of development of thetechnology (the problem of synchronising the separate pendulums, the quality of telephonelines) which contributed to the failure to offer a clear advantage over existing products orprocesses (telegraph, telegram, teleprinter). Significant improvements came with the introductionof digital technology which increased the speed and accuracy of the fax and made it easier touse for relatively unskilled operatives.

The Manufacture - no obvious Product Champion is mentioned in this brief account, thoughone could probably be found on further analysis of what went on within the innovatingcompanies concerned. The incompatibility of different manufacturers' products discouragedsome purchasers, until the agreement on International Standards finally addressed this problem.Improvements in manufacturing processes led to improved product performance and reducedcost.

The Market - for a long time before and after the invention of the fax there was no establishedneed. The first clear 'need' arose with the use of the 'wire photo' in the newspaper business. Amore widespread need was only established with the superiority of this method for transmittingJapanese characters (a national cultural factor) and when the international cultural climatechanged to accept the importance of urgency in communications.

4.3 PICKING 'WINNERS'

We saw at the end of Part 1 (and in the above discussion of the fax) that it is easy to be wise

about invention and innovation with hindsight! What is much more difficult is to identify which

current inventions or innovations will succeed or fail. Many individuals and organisations are

involved in this process of picking ‘winners’ because the rewards of success are huge. Take a

look at the inventions described in the following article and, in the light of the above 'Checklist

of success factors', consider what is affecting their chances for success. If you were

responsible for new product development in an appropriate company, would you take the risk of

investing in one of these products or processes? By the time you read this you may know more

about their success, or they may have sunk without trace.

Now read the File article "Winners and Losers in the invention game" by Charles Arthur inthe Block 1 File before returning to the SAQs below. You should expect to spendapproximately two hours on the article and the related SAQs.

54

SAQ 35What does the article suggest is the one over-riding factor for successful innovation?

SAQ 36What choices does the article suggest face the inventor who wants to commercialise aninvention?

SAQ 37For the five inventions discussed by the article, what does it suggest is the key reason,in each case, which accounts for the invention's success or failure so far? To which of thefour general categories of success factor in the 'Checklist' does each of these keyreasons belong?

In many of the examples in this Block it has been possible to identify certain factors whichcould be said to have influenced the chances of particular inventions becoming successfulinnovations - a brilliant idea, excellently realised in a well-designed product, developed andproduced with the backing of willing financiers, helping to meet a pressing need in a receptivemarket, sounds too good to be true! The other side of the coin might be a less than 'inventive'idea, inadequately realised in a poorly-designed product which no-one is willing to finance, andfor which there appears to be no demand anyway. But of course, as we've seen, life is rarely asclear cut as this.

If it is difficult to predict the likely success or failure of individual inventions and innovations, itis just as difficult to predict the future direction of innovation in general, as we will see in thenext section.

55

PART 5 THE FUTURE OF INNOVATION

It is said that 'nothing dates so quickly as visions of the future'. There is a view of time as a'three-fold present': the present as we experience it, the past as a present memory, and the futureas a present expectation. Thus predictions of the future are rooted in the present, and are basedon our experience of existing technologies and socio-economic structures. Predictions made in1893 in association with the Chicago World Fair included the following:

"Considerable travelling will be done by the air route. The [aerial] boat may be guided

from city to city by a wire strung 100 feet above the ground, so as to let the balloon pass over

trees and houses. Thus a wire one-quarter inch in diameter will hold and guide many balloons

full of people" (David Swing, preacher, quoted in Walter 1992.)

The writer was making his prediction based on his knowledge of existing technology, unawareof developments which would lead in ten years time to the first aeroplane flight of the Wrightbrothers. Thirty years later the aeroplane itself was becoming the subject of ambitiouspredictions with forecasts that before the end of the twentieth century every family would ownone. Thirty years later a similar prediction was made for the helicopter. And in the 1960s theUS writer Marshall McLuhan predicted that by the year 2000 the wheel and the road would beobsolete, having been superseded by widespread use of the hovercraft.

Invention is difficult to predict because, by definition, it contains a surprise element, somethingnew which didn't exist previously. We have already seen earlier in the Block how newtechnologies can emerge and have an unexpected impact on society. For example, who beforethe 1940s could have predicted the impact of the invention of computers? Even those fewmathematicians and scientists involved in the pioneering work which would lead to the computerwould almost certainly be amazed at the extent to which it pervades so many aspects of modernlife. In fact even as late as the end of the 1960s, predictions about the future were being madewhich made no reference to computers!

We also saw earlier in the Block how existing technologies can be put to unexpected uses. Who

would have thought that the answer to moving people more quickly through supermarket

checkouts was to be found in laser technology? Or that the optical disc, designed for video use,

would revolutionise the audio market and displace the late 20th century version of Edison's

phonograph?

On the other hand it is sometimes possible to make an inspired prediction which is not based on

any 'clues' from existing technology. Here is another of the Chicago predictions from 1893:

"Each reasonably well-to-do man (and there will be lots of them in 1993) will have a

telephote (sic.) in his residence. By means of this device, the entertainment at any place of

amusement in that city may be seen as well as heard" (Octavius Cohen, newspaper owner,

quoted in Walter 1992.)

56

Although telephones were becoming common in 1893, the first public television transmissionwas over forty years away.

Given the nature of inventions, and the unanticipated developments of known technology,

predicting what will be the innovative technologies of the future is clearly problematic. Yet a

key theme which emerges from an historical study of the development of technology and

innovation is continuity. Despite appearances, novel products and processes rarely turn up 'out

of the blue' but rather build upon existing artefacts or ways of doing things. Some

improvements on what exists may be significant enough to be labelled 'radical' (e.g. the steam

engine, lasers) and up to a certain moment in time are 'unpredictable'. A close examination of

even radical innovations, however, reveals stages in their development which build on preceding

products, processes or theories, on the prior work of multitudes of individual inventors, craft

workers, engineers, designers, entrepreneurs and, in the modern world, marketing experts,

managers, and financiers. Although it is dangerous to draw too close an analogy with natural

evolution, there are some parallels. It is possible to trace 'family trees' in which new

technologies and artefacts arise from improvements made to predecessor technologies e.g. the

'tree' for the telephone in Part 1, or for audio and sound reproduction here. Some family trees

interbreed e.g. water turbines having some aspects of their technology adapted for use in jet

engines; some branches start to grow then quickly die out e.g. the 'atmospheric' branch of the

railway tree, or the 8-track cartridge branch of the audio technology tree.

So, many of the innovative technologies of the future are with us now in some form. Many will

involve incremental improvements of an existing technology - for example super computers

based on photonics, or using room temperature super-conducting materials. Others might be

more radical, and involve unexpected applications of a scientific discovery, or imaginative

combinations of existing unrelated technologies. These more radical innovations and their

impact on society are much more difficult to predict. Could Babbage have predicted that his

'Analytical Engine' would be the forebear of a technology which would literally control large

parts of the world 150 years on?

If we can't predict with accuracy the future direction of technology, can we at least make sure it

goes in a direction where the benefits of innovation outweigh the costs? This is a question that

is addressed at various points throughout the rest of the course. Block 3 considers the

increasing importance of environmental factors in the market place. Block 4 looks at how some

manufacturers are responding by developing 'greener' products. Block 5 discusses the extent to

which government has to take account of environmental considerations in setting technology

policy. And you will see in Blocks 6 and 7 that not everyone agrees that technological

innovation necessarily results in social progress, especially considering the problems of

controlling its increasing complexity and rate of change.

57

The more we can understand about the innovation process, the better we can monitor it and

retain a chance of influencing it. However, it is in the nature of social need, technological

knowledge and invention that when a certain momentum is achieved the innovation process will

'take off', and once it does so, it can be difficult to control and impossible to turn back. We are

at that stage now with more innovations than at any time in our history - which is both an

exciting and a challenging prospect. Block 7 will consider the future of innovation in more

detail and will help you to draw conclusions based on your reading of the rest of the course.

In this increasingly complex and diverse process of innovation, is there still a place for the

individual? Or is the scale of knowledge and resources required for successful innovation as

we move into the 21st Century too great for individuals to be able to play a significant role?

These and other questions are addressed by Block 2 of the course.

58

ANSWERS TO SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

PART 1

SAQ 1(1) An innovation, which not only reached the market (initially the military then the civilianmarket) but went on to achieve great commercial success and become widely diffusedthroughout society.(2) An invention. It reached the working prototype stage but not the point of firstcommercial use.(3) An invention. Although it worked in principle, it took almost 10 years of furthertechnical development before the first commercial version, the Haloid 1385, came ontothe market.(4) An innovation. Although the Haloid 1385 was an innovation in that it reached themarket, it was not successful as it did not work well. The Xerox 914 did offer anadvantage over existing methods of copying, and became a successful innovation.

SAQ 2(1) Radical in that nothing like it had existed before. It caused quite a stir at the time, andsince has had a widespread impact on the lives of generations of people. The initialinvention made use of existing technology but in a radical new way. The next 100 yearssaw steady incremental improvements in the technology.(2) Radical. The laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) wasbased on some of Einstein's ideas from 1917. It was almost 40 years before a practicaldevice embodying these ideas was invented (initially in the first 'maser' in 1954 usingmicrowaves, and then in the 'laser' in 1960 using light). As an innovation it has gone onto have a major impact on the lives of many people through its many applications.(3) Incremental. It was a clever technical solution to a general specification laid down byPentel's Chairman, but did not involve any major steps in the development oftechnology. It might be said, though, that it was quite a radical development in the worldof pen manufacture and marketing for the producer, but an incremental development forthe user. The degree of novelty depends on one's perspective!(4) Radical in terms of its impact if less so in terms of its technology. It was dependent,however, on developments in many related areas of technology, some of whichinvolved improvements in techniques and processes which, although incremental on asocietal level, might be said to be radical in terms of that particular aspect of technologye.g. vacuum pumps.

These answers illustrate the blurring of the boundary between the two categories. Oftenthe 'radical' nature of an innovation lies in the original idea to use technology to dosomething previously unknown, or never before achieved. The subsequenttransformation of a radical invention into a practical innovation depends on incremental

59

improvements in many aspects of the related technology. The two concepts are inter-related.

SAQ 3(1) All three! Although initially an inventor, Edison quickly came to realise the importanceof selling his inventions, and of persuading others to join him in financing theirdevelopment. He thus found it necessary to back his inventive judgement with his ownmoney, and also to persuade others to invest by becoming a product champion for hisown inventions.(2) Product champion, albeit at an institutional level. Without its support Carlson mightnever have developed the photocopier beyond the prototype stage.(3) Inventor-entrepreneur. Having failed to interest IBM in her 'liquid paper' she had tofinance manufacture for herself.(4) Product champion. Although not working within an organisation, by getting Edison tofit out the steamship Columbia for the first full-scale trial of the electric light, Villard helpedto draw attention to the invention about which he felt so enthusiastic, thus contributing toits eventual success.

SAQ 4(1) the Need/Demand for a new or improved product or process.(2) the inventive Idea for a new product or a new way to make something.(3) the Technology to turn an inventive idea into an innovation on the market.(4) the Money and Resources to help transform an invention into an innovation.(5) the Determination to support the invention and overcome any obstacles.(6) a Socio-economic which encourages and rewards innovation.

SAQ 5(1) Predominantly 'push' in the early stages of its development - the technology wasdeveloped without a clear idea of its market. It was only when it was marketed for musicreproduction that it found wide scale success. Post-war recording studios provided thefirst 'pull' in the early 1950s, then the major 'pull' of the domestic market came into playfrom the late 1950s.(2) Both 'push' and 'pull' - the invention of the jet engine involved 'push' with Whittletrying to persuade people of the viability of his invention, and once the innovation waslaunched the 'pull' of the need for ever-improved performance led to subsequentimprovements in the technology.(3) Predominantly 'pull' arising out of the need for greater safety.(4) Both 'push' and 'pull' - it started with the 'pull' of the need to improve the methodof copying documents, and once the technology had been developed it had to be'pushed' onto a market which was uncertain of its need for the innovation.(5) Both 'pull' (the human need to feed people more efficiently and the economicincentive to capture a share of a steady market) and 'push' (the outcome of scientific

60

research into biotechnology and gene manipulation opening up new possibilities).(6) Predominantly 'push' in the sense that developments in computer technologyenabled more precise control of various manufacturing processes (see Part 3 for moreon this), but with a background of 'pull' in terms of the potential for productimprovements and cost savings giving an economic incentive to this innovation.(7) Predominantly 'pull' in terms of the emerging need to treat this 'new' illness, butwith an element of 'push' in that advances in scientific knowledge and medical processesenabled progress to be made in a direction indicated by the need.(8) Predominantly 'push'. It arose out of a mathematical theory and scientific researchand in the very early stages of its development had no obvious application. Only later,as possible uses began to be realised, did 'pull' begin to provide an incentive for furtherimprovements to meet the emerging needs of new applications in medicine, industryand commerce.

It seems clear from these and other examples that the innovation process involveselements of both 'push' and 'pull' at different stages, and that sometimes both elementsare at work at the same time!

PART 2

SAQ 61. Recognition of a need or potential market for a new product or process.2. Scientific and technical knowledge which opens up possibilities for new

products or processes.

SAQ 7Scientific/Technological knowledge and skills which can either enable existing needs tobe met via new or improved products or processes, or which can open up newpossibilities for products which meet latent needs or even create new needs in themarket place.

61

SAQ 8To link novel ideas and the market, matching an awareness of what is becomingpossible through scientific and technical research with the needs of customers.

SAQ 9At every stage from "the original first flash" through the entire research, design anddevelopment work, to the introduction of the new product or process onto the market.

SAQ 10When he suggests that innovation involves the "survival of the fittest". He suggests thatfailure can arise from both sides of the 'scissors' - from an inherent technical weakness ina new product or process (or the inability of an individual or organisation to solvetechnical problems), and from misjudging the market and the competitors in some way.

SAQ 111. It is important for individuals and firms to monitor closely (and/or be directlyinvolved in) scientific research and technological possibilities as they may then be ableto be among the first to realise a new technological possibility and gain an advantageover their competitors. He sees investment in Research and Development as leadingto competitive advantage.

2. It is important for firms to keep in close touch with the requirements of theircustomers as this might enable them to be among the first to see potential markets fornew ideas, or recognise dissatisfaction or changing needs requiring new or improvedproducts or processes.

3. It is important to maintain the 'coupling. "... the test of successful entrepreneurshipand good management is the capacity to link together these technical and marketpossibilities, by combing the two flows of information".

SAQ 12Because of the complexity of the relationship between advancing science andtechnology, and the changing market. He sees a succession of new combinationsemerging, scientific advances (sometimes in unrelated fields) regularly opening up newtechnological possibilities, and new needs arising as the market responds to newproducts and processes. He points out that the original idea for an innovation may takeyears, or even decades, to develop, and that "during this time it continually takes on newforms as the technology develops and the market changes or competitors react".

SAQ 13

62

SAQ 141. Both marketing and technical factors are important for successful innovation.

2. The relative importance of technology-push and need-pull can vary considerablyduring different phases. For example in the early stages of development of theinnovative biotechnology industry, scientific discovery and technical improvements weremore crucial to successful development as the industry became bigger market needsand commercial requirements exerted a "greater influence on the rate and direction oftechnological change".

SAQ 15Because while it is possible to develop an incremental innovation using anorganisation's existing structures and procedures, the successful commercialisation of aradical innovation is likely to require adaptations and accompanying innovations inaspects of the firm such as management, production, marketing/sales, in order to makethe most out of its long-term commercial potential. Innovation in the future will requireboth managerial flexibility and organisational flexibility with 'innovation friendly'organisational structures.

SAQ 161. It mirrors actual practice more closely by representing innovation not as a simplesequential process but as a more complex parallel process which can involvesimultaneous consideration of R & D, design, manufacturing, marketing, redesign and soon.

63

2. It emphasises the importance of integration, both between the variousdepartments within a firm (R & D, manufacturing, marketing), and also outside, 'upstream'with suppliers and 'downstream' with major customers.

SAQ 171. It emphasises much closer strategic integration between collaborating companies(including e.g. co-development of new products with suppliers).

2. It draws attention to the electronification of innovation via e.g. linked supplier/userCAD systems, electronic product design/manufacturing links leading to improvements indesign for manufacture.

PART 3

SAQ 18(1) Introduction of steam power contributed to the ability to achieve greater output withless effort.

(2) (i) Electricity allowed for transmission of a new kind of power and newcommunications, permitting greater decentralisation of work

(ii) Chemistry enabled the creation of synthetic products unknown in nature.

(3) Computers and Telecommunications mean we can now have faster, more flexibleand more decentralised ways of working and living

SAQ 19(i) the changes of mechanical, electrical and electro-mechanical devices to electronicdevices(ii) miniaturization(iii) digitalization(iv) software

SAQ 20Bell suggests that the world is divided into three kinds of social organisation,characterised by different types of key technologies and their characteristics, drivingforces, motives, rates of change etc.

- Pre-industrial - extractive industries - fishing, farming, mining- craft production- often driven by human needs (food, shelter etc.) and

spiritual/intellectual needs- relatively slow rates of change though some bursts of

64

activity

- Industrial - fabrication - breaking down into less-skilled tasks- mass production, centralisation of industries- water and then steam powered, then electric and chemical-

powered- motivated much more by economic needs of Western capitalist system- higher productivity - greater output with less effort via

investment- increasingly rapid rates of change

- Post-industrial - process innovation, control, information- service-based as much as product-based- electronics/miniaturisation/digitalisation- reduction in number of parts and vast increase in speed of

transmission- sometimes bewildering rates of change to those who've lived through part of the 'industrial' age - rapid obsolescence of technologies.

SAQ 21He sees 'post-industrial' society as a society of services, not just those connected withindustry (e.g. utilities, transportation, finance, real estate) but in particular what he callshuman services (e.g. education, health, social services) and professional services (e.g.analysis and planning, design, programming). He sees knowledge and its relation totechnology as being a key factor in innovation, and processing, control and informationhandling as being key activities in a post-industrial society.

SAQ 22Bell suggests that major technological innovations still current (steel, electricity,telephone, radio, aviation) were created by 'talented tinkerers', skilled in the practicalaspects of their equipment and technology, but who knew little about, or wereindifferent, to the developments of science, and in particular the theoretical aspects.

However, he argues that the new principle of innovation in the late 20th (+ early 21st)century is that it is dependent on fundamental discoveries and developments intheoretical knowledge (physics, biology, cognitive psychology etc.). Thus individualinventors need to be involved in, or well informed about, such developments.

65

SAQ 23(i) communication begins to replace transportation as major connection and mode oftransaction between people(ii) with communication being so cheap there is a shift towards decentralisation(iii) markets are no longer places but networks

This all leads to a "widening of the arenas, the multiplication of the numbers of actors, andan increase in the velocity and volatility of transactions and exchanges".

SAQ 24(i) the organisers of the production system :

- Whitney (standardised forms and interchangeable parts)- Taylor (measurement of work)- Ford (assembly line and mass production)

(ii) the capitalists who put together large corporations e.g. the Carnegies, theRockefellers.

(iii) the organisers of the corporate form:- Teagle (vertical integration)- Vail (idea of a single uniform system)- Sloan (system of financial controls and budgetary accounting).

SAQ 25Bell suggests that new institutional structures and different forms of social organization areneeded because of the new nature and volume of interactions, and the rapidity ofchange. Newer technologies (CAD, NC, CAM) make possible flexible, shorter-run,batch production, easily adapted to different kinds of markets, responsive to specialisedproducts and customised demands. There is an emphasis on diversity rather thanuniformity. New markets are less of an oligopoly and 'steady state', more complex andchanging.

SAQ 26(i) a single 'designer' chair one-off/bespoke(ii) an aircraft carrier one-off/bespoke(iii) a power station generator Batch(iv) an electric locomotive Batch(v) a personal microcomputer Assembly-line(vi) a ball-point pen Assembly-line(vii) petroleum Continuous

66

SAQ 27The development of mechanical tools such as Maudslay's precision lathe, plus generalpurpose machine tools which could be used on a variety of products, enabled greateraccuracy in metal cutting to be applied to production of a wide range of goods. Also theincreasing accuracy of new measuring instruments such as the micrometer, led to higherstandards of work. Greater standards of accuracy in measurement also led to the use ofengineering drawings which provided an objective standard against which to compareand adjust manufacturing performance. Finally, agreed standards for precision ofcomponents ensured the repeatability necessary for manufacture on any large scale.

SAQ 28Rather than aiming for a level of precision which was as near perfect as possible, theAmerican System specified limited for acceptable levels of variation betweencomponents, with interchangeability as the key principle. The increasing use of single-purpose machines meant that the manufacturing process was less dependent on theexercise of skilled judgements and procedures by individual workers, who were anothersource of variation in the process.

SAQ 29Taylor's 'Scientific Management' aimed to reduce variation in the output of amanufacturing process by breaking jobs down into small elements, removing anyelements thought to be superfluous, and allocating each separate element to onefunctional specialist. Thus worker discretion (a potential source of variation) was reducedby getting them to perform a single function repeatedly, according to specifiedprocedures and judged against predetermined standards. Ford added to this theconcept of a moving assembly line where time is saved and productivity improved bybringing the components to the worker for assembly at the appropriate point in theprocess. Further reductions are achieved in variation and uncertainty by controlling thepace of the assembly line, to which the worker has to adapt.

SAQ 30Quality standards for the output of a manufacturing process are defined. Then carefulmonitoring and recording of the final dimensions of a mass-manufactured product canhelp in identifying how a manufacturing process is changing over time, so that correctiveaction can be taken to meet quality standards.

SAQ 31Numerical Control permitted not just monitoring the performance of machines butadjusting and controlling the performance of a group of machines run by computers.Change involved rewriting software rather than constructing new hardware, thus allowing

67

more frequent incremental changes. Quality could thus be maintained or even improvedduring the process of manufacture.

SAQ 32By controlling all stages of the process via computers (from design and specification byCAD to automated control of manufacture by CAM) a degree of system intelligencecan be achieved. This involves more comprehensive error identification and correction,plus increased flexibility in being able to respond quickly to changes demanded by themarket. A Flexible Manufacturing System allows even a small, specialised organisationto respond to shifts in demand and 'customize' its output.

SAQ 33To some extent, the further 'up' the hierarchy the more appropriate it would be to usethe production system for CIM and locate it in an 'automatic factory'. Thus continuousproduction is already highly automated, as is assembly-line production, though the latteris normally associated with high-volume low-variety products. The output of flexiblemanufacturing systems are more typically high variety low/medium volume productswhich are probably more suited to batch production of some kind. It seemsuneconomic, and thus highly unlikely, for an 'automatic factory' ever to be used for one-off or bespoke production !

SAQ 34WORKER MANAGEMENT

English System- still retaining some characteristics ofcraft work but with increasingly accurategeneral purpose machines, and judgedagainst precision standards

- setting standard for accuracy andprecision- monitoring performance of separate'craft'-type workers and ensuringcorrection if necessary

American System- separation of those designing, making +repairing machines (highly skilled) fromthose operating them (less skilled)- single-purpose machine operationreduces the level of skill and judgementrequired of workers

- separation of 'processing' (from'assembly')- separation of processing into separatesmaller operations- managing relationships between a set ofsingle-purpose machines within amanufacturing 'system'

68

Scientific Management- further deskilling of worker throughincreasingly specialised single-purposemachines and assembly-line pacing- control of pace of work as workers areforced to work at the speed of theassembly line

- managing an increasingly complexsystem where work is more standardizedthan before and worker effort is morehighly controlled- separation of knowledge about theactivities that make up a manufacturingprocess from the particular process itself

Statistical Process Control- some discretion and control of workreturned to operator with emphasis onteam work

- separation of information about how aprocess is performing from the processitself, enabling the study of howeffectively each operation works- monitoring of machine performancerather than operator performance

Numerical Control- operator works with information ratherthan physical objects- individual skill level required is higher

- full separation of information processingfrom materials processing- need to ensure that skilled individualsare kept occupied via regular innovation

Flexible Manufacturing System- further separation of worker from thephysical work- need for a higher but more general levelof individual skills but from far fewerpeople- increasing importance of team work- more responsibility returned to theworker

- change of focus from managing peopleto managing information and knowledge- less clear distinctions between workerand management?

Computer Integrated Manufacture- almost complete separation of workerfrom the physical work- high level of managerial responsibilitydevolved to the worker, but continuingdecrease in the number of workersrequired by such a system

- continuation of above trends

PART 4

69

SAQ 35'Brutal commerce'. It suggests that an invention that is time-saving, or otherwise helpsreduce costs, aimed at a market that is always trying to save costs, greatly increases thechance of successful innovation - but there is still no guarantee!

SAQ 36(1) set up the inventor's own company to make the product - this gives the inventor thefull benefits of success but also the full costs of failure.(2) look for business partners to fund the invention - and share in its success or failure(3) license the invention to an established manufacturer - this increases the chances ofsuccess but reduces the rewards to the licence fee and any royalties.

SAQ 37Invention Key reason for success

/ failureSuccess factor

Slim induction motor Not cheaper thanestablished competition

'Invention' category

Building system Can't interest large-scalemanufacturers

'Manufacture' category

Silage-baling attachment Offers advantages (time &cost saving, cheaper thancomplete balers)

"Invention' category

Fork-lift truck Space * cost saving ECregs. meant marketreceptive to new designsand manufacturersprepared to take risks

'Market' category

Water purifier Some technical problems;hesitation of manufacturersdue to doubts over market

Both 'Invention' and'Manufacture' categories(with 'Market' influencestoo)

CHECKLIST OF OBJECTIVES

Having completed your study of this Block you should now be able to do the following:

PART 1

70

1 Give basic definitions of key terms such as: invention, design, innovation, diffusion

2 Distinguish between 'invention' and 'innovation' in the case of particular new products orprocesses

3 Identify particular innovations as largely 'radical' or 'incremental'

4 Identify particular actors in the innovation process as 'inventors' or 'product champions'

5 List the key components of the innovation process

6 Discuss the main sources (or mix of sources) of invention and innovation

PART 2

7 Explain Usher's four key steps in the process of invention

8 Apply the labels from simple models such as 'technology push' or 'market pull' to anyinnovation

9 Describe the 'coupling' model of the innovation process

10 Show how the inadequacies of such models can be resolved in more complex models

PART 3

11 Explain how invention and innovation take place in a changing context of social,political, economic and cultural constraints

12 Discuss how the context in which innovation takes place has changed over the lastcentury

13 Consider the impact of innovations in computing and telecommunications on theorganisation of work in particular and 'post-industrial' society in general

14 Distinguish between 'product' and 'process' innovations

15 Discuss the importance of innovations in the manufacturing process to the innovationprocess as a whole

16 Describe the four general types of production system

17 Describe how successive developments in manufacturing technology have enabledgreater control over the manufacturing process

18 Consider the implications of process innovations for the role of individual workers,management and the nature of work

PART 4

19 Identify the four general categories of factor which can contribute to successfulinnovation

20 Use the 'Checklist of Success Factors' to explain the reasons for the success or failureof a given example of innovation

21 Analyse any simple common household object and show how it is the result of anevolutionary development of materials, components and techniques

71

PART 5

22 Discuss the extent to which the outcome of innovation and technological developmentcan be predicted and controlled.

REFERENCES

Basalla, G. (1988), The Evolution of Technology, Cambridge University Press.

Bell, D. ed. (1967), Towards the year 2000: work in progress, Beacon Press.

Bell, D. (1988), The Third Technological Revolution - and its possible socio-economic

consequences, Third Annual Faculty Lecture, University of Salford, March 3.

Bennett, R.C. and Cooper, R.G. (1979), 'Beyond the marketing concept', Marketing, December,

pp.76-83.

Clark, R.W. (1977), Edison- the man who made the future, Macdonald and Jane's.

Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship: practice and principles, Heinemann.

Friedel, R. and Israel, P. (1987), Edison's Electric Light: Biography of an Invention, Rutgers,

The State University.

Gelatt, R. (1977), The Fabulous Phonograph 1877-1977, Second revised edition, Cassell and

Company Ltd.

Giscard d'Estaing, V. (ed.) (1991), The Book of Inventions and Discoveries, Queen Anne Press.

Heskett, J. (1980), Industrial Design, Thames & Hudson Ltd.

Home Office Partnership (1995), The Shape of Work to Come, Report, Home Office

Partnership/Reed Personnel Services.

Hughes, T.P. (1990), 'From Deterministic Dynamos to Seamless-web Systems' in Sladovich,

H.E. (ed.), Engineering as a Social Enterprise, National Academy Press.

Hunkin, T. (1990), Almost Everything There is to Know, Hamlyn.

Hunkin, T. (1993), 'Just give me the fax', New Scientist, 13 February.

Irvin, H. D. (1982), 'The Machine in Utopia: Shaker Women and Technology', in Rothschild, J.

(ed.), Women, Technology and Innovation, Pergamon Press Ltd., pp313-319.

Jaikumar, R. (1988), From Filing and Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing: a study in the

evolution of Process Control, Working Paper, Harvard Business School.

James, P.P. (1989), The Real McCoy: African-American Invention and Innovation 1619-1930,

Anacosta Museum of the Smithsonian Institute.

Jewkes, J., Sawers, D. and Stillerman, R. (1969), The Sources of Invention, 2nd edition,

Macmillan.

72

Koestler, A. (1949), Insight and Outlook. An Inquiry into the Common Foundations of Science,

Art and Social Ethics, Macmillan.

Lucky, R.W. (1990), 'Pondering the Unpredictability of the Sociotechnical System' in

Sladovich, H.E. (ed.), Engineering as a Social Enterprise, National Academy Press.

Macaulay, D. and Ardley, N. (1988), The Way Things Work, Dorling Kindersley.

Morita, A. with Reingold, E.M. and Shimomura, M. (1986), Made in Japan, E.P. Dutton /

Penguin Books.

McNeil, I. (1990), An Encyclopaedia of the History of Technology, Routledge.

Pilditch, J. (1978), 'How Britain can compete', Marketing, December, pp 34-8.

Rolt, L.T.C. (1957), Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Penguin Books.

Rolt, L.T.C. (1970), A History of Victorian Engineering, Penguin Books.

Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn, Free Press.

Rose, M.A. (1991), The post-modern and the post-industrial, Cambridge University Press.

Rosenfeld, R. and Servo, J.C. (1990), 'Facilitating innovation in large organizations', in M.A.

West and J. Farr (eds.), Innovation and creativity at work, John Wiley & Sons.

Rothwell, R. (1993), 'Successful Industrial Innovation: critical factors for the 1990s', R & D

Management, Vol.22, No.3, pp.221-239.

Roy, R. (1983), Block 2 'Bicycles Invention and Innovation' in T263 Design: Processes and

Products, The Open University Press.

Teece, D.J. (1986), 'Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,

collaboration, licensing and public policy', Research Policy, Vol.15, pp.285-305.

Tibballs, G. (1994), The Guinness Book of Innovations, Guinness Publishing Ltd.

Tominaga, K. (1971), 'Post-Industrial Society and Cultural Diversity', Survey, vol.16, no.1,

Winter, pp 68-77.

Usher, A.P. (1954), A History of Mechanical Inventions, Revised edition, Harvard College,

USA.

Utterback, J.M. (1994), Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School

Press, Boston Massachusetts, USA.

Walter, D. (1992), Today Then, American and World Geographic Publishing.

73

APPENDIX

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

Here are definitions of some of the key terms which you will encounter when reading about theinnovation process. As with models of the process, however, you should treat these definitionswith a certain degree of scepticism. Reality is always more complex than any simple definitionor model suggests! Nevertheless, it is important to try to define and model the processesinvolved in innovation in order to start to understand them.

Creativity: the ability to generate novel ideas

to Invent: the process of transforming a novel idea into reality, giving it a form such as a description, sketch or model

for a new, product, process or system.

an Invention: a novel idea that has been transformed into reality and given a physical form such as a description, sketch or

model conveying the essential principles of a new product, process or system.

to Design: the process of converting generalised ideas and concepts into specific plans/drawings etc. which can enable the

manufacture of products, processes or systems.

a Design: specific plans, drawings and instructions to enable the manufacture of products, processes or systems;

a particular physical embodiment of a product or device.

Technology: the application of scientific and other knowledge to practical tasks by organizations that involve people and

machines.

Product Champion: an individual or group committed to the development of a certain product or process, prepared to 'champion' it

against all resistance (usually in an institutional context).

Entrepreneur: an individual or group, committed to the development of a particular new product or process, prepared to provide,

or to persuade others to provide, the finance necessary to turn the invention into an innovation.

to Innovate: the process of translating an idea or invention into a new product, process or system on the market or in social

use.

an Innovation: a novel product, process or system at the point of first commercial introduction or use.

Radical Innovation: a major new step in the development of technology.

Incremental Innovation: technical modifications or improvements to an existing product, process or system (sometimes called

'evolutionary' innovation).

Dominant Design: the design containing those implicit features which are recognised as essential by a majority of manufacturers

and purchasers.

Process Innovation: an improvement in the organisation and method of manufacture (sometimes called 'manufacturing

innovation').

74

Diffusion: the process of adoption of an innovation into increasingly widespread use in the market.

Technology Push: the process of innovation may be stimulated by a new idea, invention or technical possibility.

Market Pull: the invention/innovation process may be seen as stemming from the needsordemands as expressed in the

market place.

75

Parallel efforts of a series of inventors in

different parts of the world, stimulated by

developments in telegraphy which transmitted

Morse code signals along wire.

Bell invents the telephone 1876

improvement in perf. related inventions

manual exchange

automatic exchange

pay phones

Radio telephone 1900 Telex 1916 written messages dialling

direct-diallingSTD system

Visiophone 1929

Phototelegraphy 1924

push-button

phone features- memory

Answer machines

Voice controlportable

Picturephone (Bell) 1970s

Cellular phone (portable r+) 1979

Fax?

Phone Videophone (Japan)

Internet