How Do You Innovate?

The comments like; "you cant do that" can have two possible effects on people trying to innovate. The majority will simply believe this statement and give up right away.

A smaller portion [the highly determined innovators] will follow the extreme opposite. This negative type of comment might actually inspire them and make them more determined to innovate. The "can't do that" comment is typical in large organizations. Not all of them as there are many forward thinking, progressive companies that take the opposite stance. There are many that even outsource a portion of their search for innovation in NPD [New Product development].

I, for one, am such an innovator. Instead of getting angry or discouraged, I take the extreme opposite approach and that is to plough into the innovative idea even more seriously. The ''cant do that' comment often has an agenda beneath it. Seniors who do not have any new ideas might feel threatened and may run down your new idea.

Just remember, many inventive ideas have come from former dissatisfied employees at large organizations where their new ideas were discouraged. I believe the old Col. Saunders of KFC fame had to knock on some 917 doors before someone finally took his recipe to commercial level.

The fact that they say ''cant be done' should actually give you a good idea as to whether or not it has been done before. If not, then there is a great chance that your idea could be novel.

The truth is that there is really no such thing as something that 'cannot be done'. Given enough time, resources and motivation one could do practically anything! Whether it is an efficient or profitable exercise is another question. But even this. With practice, great focus and skill one will become more efficient at innovating through experience and through smart collaboration.

There are many ways for innovation, from internal unestructured activity, internal and organized, external - open - collaborative...but any company trying to maintain an innovative position should organize the innovation processes, including the ideas creation following. There are many parameters that determine how easy ideas can be generated, can flow from the person to the company, and how well a company manages them. Never forget that an idea can flow if there is willingness to do it, and that is the reason why a good atmosphere (a non boss/hierarchical conducted small meetings 3-5 people) and good incentives are needed in this field. Anyway, I think good ideas can arrive from any people, people on your company, from out of your company, from your sector and from outside your sector, and also any age. From my point of view, a wonderful world.

One of the first lessons I learnt in the vane of ;"you can't do that" was during my MSc Engineering Thesis Project. I needed a solid cylinder made of Tungsten metal [size of a coke can, but 1 cm thick and hollow] to use as a workpiece in an induction furnace at super high temperatures. This was around 1985. First thing that sprung to mind was to call on the prof of Materials Science at my old university.

He was adamant in his response and said "you simply cannot do this". For a few months, I believed this nonsense. I later found out that it can be done but it costs 'and arm and a leg' as they say. With some ingenuity and a great deal of motivation I set about manufacturing this tungsten work-piece myself in our labs/ workshops at the university [done through high pressure compaction of the tungsten powder, followed by sintering in a controlled atmosphere furnace].

Moral of the Story : Don't believe them - even if it comes from a so-called expert.

Must say, it was incredibly difficult to manufacture such a component. It turned out to be a little side-project in it's own right. Interesting to note that this period was probably the height of true innovation I was doing. Once I went into big industry, I Worked mainly on huge industrial plants where we designed and built massive plants. Little innovation but huge capital. These companies usually had very small libraries - usually based at head office.

Currently, I'm at an R&D company. Doing more innovative stuff. But still big company environment where the same still "can't do that" statement can often still prevail.

I have had a a few encouraging responses from the authors that write for publication called Research-Technology Management [official Journal of the Australasian Industrial Research Group - AIRG]. See link www.airg.org and also www.iriweb.org

The main featured keyword in this publication is probably INNOVATION. Some of the regular authors of note include; James Euchner, Bruce Brown, Scott Mathews, etc. The articles in this Publication are highly relevant to the topic of this thread. I keep a file with well-read copies of articles from this Quarterly publication. There are so many of these articles! I find a good approach is to simply select say 3-4 of these articles most relevant to your R&D or innovation and to use them as 'text-book' articles from which to work. I find they are usually at the forefront of the latest thinking and efficient methods in R&D. Problem is that we often find ourselves in organizations that are several steps behind the latest.

In this case we sit with the latest methods in these articles but for our organization to benefit from these it still has to pass through several other stages of improvement before we can even begin to start using the methods highlighted in the publication, R-T Management .

D, excellent posts. you are inspiring!

I agree that persistence is key... especially if it is a 'favourite', or if an idea takes hold of the imagination, and the 'others' aren't giving a long list of reasons why it won't work... or simply a big fat NO.

I think that there needs to be a 'phase' in any project, where new ideas are brainstormed, and then a process to weed out the ones that aren't applicable to the final goals.

In an on going production environment, you just don't have such a space for clear thinking, and if the place isn't geared for employees to innovate, it can be a challenge to even get one's ideas heard.

I look forward to hearing more from you.

Chris

I agree that "there needs to be a 'phase' in any project, where new ideas are brainstormed, and then a process to weed out the ones that aren't applicable to the final goals." Easier said than done, given the limitations of human nature and the fragile egos of experts. Maybe the vetting process should be anonymous.

Experienced participants will have blind spots from jumping to conclusions about the details of the problem, thinking it resembles something they already know about when it really doesn't. Without any open brainstorming process to correct those wrong assumptions, the project will fail. "Measure twice, saw once" is especially difficult to maintain as a policy when the problem is presented as an emergency.

As an example of ready-fire-aim, I would offer CO2 sequestration, which was touted as the key to "clean coal" as a solution to global warming. Now, after wasting billions of dollars, it looks like it's time to punt. If DOE had done a frank and thorough technology assessment, and considered the input of petroleum engineering experts and geology experts familiar with deep saline aquifers and their potential disastrous impact on groundwater if the brine is displaced to make way for CO2, these billions could have been put to more productive use instead of becoming corporate welfare paying for the oil companies' EOR operations.

In an on going production environment, you just don't have such a space for clear thinking, and if the place isn't geared for employees to innovate, it can be a challenge to even get one's ideas heard.

That is so true Chris and on so many levels. If you take the ongoing production environment to start with, and that could be anything, from producing steel enforced plastics or to coming up with good and viable ideas and present them in theory. At one stage resources are what the catalyst is.

Once funding is achieved (on any scale) clear thinking has to set in and usually the fox is not a good hen keeper. That creates a situation were the bean counter rules. Many of us run into decision makers that only know about their end of the deal but have no idea of the realities, in our case un-realities. That creates an environment of unnecessary friction and confusion on both sides.

To get ones ideas heard is the hardest bit. I am not talking from a position in a company but from the position of an inventor with no strings attached. I have in the past encountered what you are describing. The psychology of a system, the human presence, lets emotion set it. Very good for creativity, in my case, but not good for the 'getting a seed to hold' part of the deal.

Just one word at the wrong time, not even related to the technical challenge ahead, and things take on ballast. Like dropping a comment about the stupid new car the boss has scavenged, done that. To keep the situation "neutral" is as important as the nuts and bolts and their functions. If the "feathering the own nest syndrome" could be turned into "lets build this thing", better results could be achieved.

It will just stay that way and only the most dedicated, engaged, enthusiastic will get satisfaction from working in teams. Yeah, that dream of the perfect team. The trust one can have in the ability of others. Dissecting a problem is not a one man band and requires trust in the evaluation of the problem by others.

CR4 is an excellent sound board for this and has been in the past. The amount of collaboration that is being practiced here is, or could be, a dream come true. Just as is, we don't have to be standing around a work piece or idea to get together. Just thought about how a real get together of CR4 contributors would work out.

Like all in one place, just not on this continent

Hope all goes well, I'm on the case.

While the production environment can be stifling wrt innovation, there are certain companies that have an ideal set up. They have a balance between innovation, production and the market. [Wish I in such a place]. The publication Research- Technology Management speaks abou these companies all the time. See www.airg.org.au

Sadly, I just heard this morning that our company had cancelled their subscription to this publication. A sad blow to innovation, indeed ! It is a quarterly publication and I'm sure it can't cost too much. Will write to the editors about this. Can enter the website but cannot download any of the articles unless subscription is paid.

Anyway, let's think of innovative way(s) to get around this one. What about if I write a good article to the publication. Might they send me a couple of free issues ?

What about if I write a good article to the publication. Might they send me a couple of free issues?

Now that single spark is the mark of the true innovator. But you seem to be more interested in a subscription than in a couple of free issues. So why not send a sample 500-word essay with an offer to serve as a regular contributor in exchange for a free subscription? You could title the offer "Will write to read"

Innovators will always deal with invalidaters and hijackers. To inovate one must stay focused while keeping a non-pardigmed approach.

Seems like half the time, my customers don't really know what they want or how to get there. But a bunch of people still put together "the list" of specifications at some point, which is supposed to be adhered to. I have found quite a few cases where a customer has spec'd in materials which would have been incompatible with their process chemicals.

I have also had customer specifications that appeared to be way out in left field, based off of some standard somewhere that some greenie picked up and laid down as law, and often times I have found that the particular standard to which they refer to is unrelated, and is not needed for the job, but they tossed it in there for one reason or another.

Many times I have had customers spec in things that would make their parts/pieces/assemblies simply be too expensive to create. We send out the quote exactly to their specifications and get the deer in the headlights look when they get the figures. Often the shock of the price-tag is enough to get them to consider some small modifications which will allow standard manufacturing processes to create their same components at an economical level. Sometimes simply changing a bend radius, or relocating a feature can make all the difference in the world when it comes to actually building the parts. They might look fantastic in the computer, but if it can't be built it's nothing more than a pretty picture.

In the end, The customer is always right, but sometimes the customer might need a nudge in the right direction with the use of solid data, and minor design changes.

I listen very carefully to my clients. They are the ones who are using my products and services.

Well... since this is a thread about "you can't do that" scenarios... that is exactly what I described. My colleagues, who were doing exactly as you suggest, at the end of the day, didn't get the customer what they needed.

Thank you for an interesting look back on my own experiences with the naysayers.

1. The man who bet me that I could not get a permit to grow Marijuana in Texas in 1978. It took getting a contract to deliver fiber, writing an enforceable "residue management protocol" to prevent the cannabinoids from leaving the premises, and the final kicker was the $500 bar bet.

2. A potential investor who told me I could not set up a boat rental business without risking losing it due to a renter's carelessness in 1982. That took several months of work to come up with a tight "hold harmless" clause that a retired federal judge said would reqire that my rental company be removed from any suit filed before his bench.

3. The truck driver who bet me that I could not take my big Kenworth truck sightseeing in Atlanta, Georgia without getting a ticket in 2000. I had to drop my trailer and have the service shop at the truck stop take off the outside duals on the drive axles to make it a six wheel truck to stay legal.

If you tell me I can't do something, and I get a little grin and ask "Want to bet?", be careful before vou call the bet. The essential attribute of an innovator is the habit of asking "Now just what do I have do to get there?".

Was Alexey Pajitnov ≤ 14 years old when he invented "Tetris"?

(I imagine many other counterexamples could be found.)