Barriers to Innovation: Management Resistance?

I agree with Dean Rice on all his conclusions. I would add that perhaps the best way to advance an innovative idea is to find the most technologically saavy individual in the upper echelon of management. Often this person is in a position to give the necessary funding or other support to follow up on the concept. If that individual can be sold on the idea and that manager understands the impact on business and why the inventor is pushing the innovation, it is much easier to get it moving.

A major reason management is often reluctant to move forward on innovation is that in today's culture managers are brought in to manage "for profit" based on rules they learned in university; so that is what they try to do, and are focused on it. In past years, the main source for mangement of companies/corporations was the original owners. They typically had much experience in the business they were trying to manage and knew the pitfalls of the business. They also had MUCH MUCH MORE at stake since they were the owners, and as a result they seemed to be more open to new ideas.

Most managers bonuses are based on savings and profit for the year. In fear that there job may be short lived, they shoot for the short term profits. This keeps their bonus at a higher point. Investing for the long term is not in their best interest.

I have found this economic factor to be true more than once.

Niccolo' Machiavelli in 1513 wrote about the issue in his De Principatibus :

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them." Ch. 6 The Prince

Having spent the years between1970 and 1989 in Silicon Valley I have to agree with Mr. Rice.

But! Because of this prevalent attitude Silicon Valley became the most vital growth area in the world.

Frustrated engineers would quit, find Venture Capital, start a new "Start Up" company and enough of these Start Up's became successful to keep the cycle going.

This was "A good thing" because when these companies became large they reverted to the same attitudes as their founders had rebelled against. And frustrated engineers would quit and get venture capital, become successful and so on.

I had a Family Tree on my office wall that started with Fairchild Semiconductor and branched out from there to encompass almost all of Silicon Valley.

If Fairchild Management had been more intelligent Fairchild would probably be the largest corporation in the world instead of a bit player.

This has happened in other industries as well with many of the start ups becoming larger than the company that the founders left.

Personally, I feel that the Harvard Business School's Management Model, (Short term profit at the expense of everything else), has done more to destroy American business than all the bombs we dropped on Germany and Japan during WW2 combined.

When academics and accountants run the company, innovation is not allowed.

Hmmm,

I'd have thought 'all the bombs dropped on Germany & Japan' did a great deal for American business!...Not so good for German or Japanese business (or at least in the short term!)

I'm not trying to go all political...it just seemed a rather inapropriate quote..in oh so many ways!

Gotta agree with prbarry. One of things I have noticed in my 40 plus years in this profession is the engineering ranks produce good engineers and poor ones The good ones " raise the bar" so the competition for recognition becomes more intense within the group. The not so competent engineer opts out of this competition becoming more "political". Soon the political engineer is promoted to a management position by having learned whose *** to kiss, wearing the management dark suit uniform (or whatever is the style of top management), and learning the vocabulary of a proper supplicant.

Ultimately, if the political engineer is really good at playing the political game, he or she becomes the big boss, your nemesis, a politicly skilled but still technically challenged person in the position to deny life to your project.

I have experienced the NIH phenomenon. One of the main problems is not that the Business Schools don't teach management that incorporates innovation--they do! It is just that most business school graduates didn't pay that much attention.

Dave Meador

I must say, bravo!! That's why I consult instead of working directly for a company.

Assuming you could pass the secretary, the second you open a manager's door you're asked who sent you - not who you are and what you propose!

I agree with most of the above opinions to which I would add that is not only a matter of education or culture but also the human nature: managers love too much their position and (not always well deserved) salary to get involved in any risky activity. Their eternal excuse is the lack of their precious time. Your time doesn't count!

The appetite for innovation in a corporate world was well analyzed. Probably the solution is in politicians' hands: if the public is convinced by them to turn a % of the national resource into a risk capital to funding R&D in prioritized projects, maybe more good invention would reach the market. Many obstacles could arise on the way - such as incompetent or indifferent government employees - but is worth trying! Japan did that.

In a recent issue of the emagazine Helium, author Peter Fisher writes about leadership and management. In this article he states a warning with thought provoking clarity and I quote; " Don't make the mistake of associating supervisory position, or seats of power, with leadership. This presumes the two are synonymous..."

Yet we are taught to look to management for leadership. Does leadership and management constitute an oxymoron? Pbarry's brilliant flow chart of Fairchild"s descent into the backwaters of technological innovation seem to validate Mr. Fisher's postulate.

Dean Rice seems to have opened the Pandora's box of management's secrets. Perhaps once they're all out in the open we will be able to identify and nullify the incompetent manager before that person uses our backs to ascend the corporate ladder.

Having worked as a department manager, (£5.5M turnover. 80 people) I can tell you that my job took up 60 to 80 hours of my week and there just wasn't time to listen to new ideas which didn't have an immediate impact on the job in hand or reduction in costs to satisfy the haemeroids known as accountants! By comparison when I worked at a Defence research establishment for 5 years, (over 85 MSc's in the telephone book) everybody was actively encouraged to innovate and invent. we had a couple of full-time patent officers, could get Mecano sets and any electronic device we wanted from stores. They even had a silicon foundry. Life was good and things like liquid crystal displays were invented.

Now I find myself a self employed inventor with a new electronic gadget which fulfills the requirements of the latest EU and US legislation and has a potential market of £400 million/annum, (independent survey). The device has gone through full independant testing and the production design is completed and samples have been in operation for over 5 years. I applied for a patent in Feb 2000 - still waiting for Munich to assess it. I've tried Venture capital - biggest bunch of crooks since the Krays - I'd have lost my IP and everything else if I'd signed their 'contract'. Now I'm stuck, haven't enough money to start production or market it properly and don't trust anybody any more - what a waste of time!!!

So what's the answer???

I think the government should make it easier for Companies to set up their own internal 'Skunk works' where inventors could be funded to explore new designs, (not always in that Company's portfolio). The inventor would use the host Company as an incubator and hopefully the host would help the final product to market without ripping off the guy who started it all off. My experience of inventors is that they are naive, intense, single minded and completely unemployable in a normal design/work environment. I've known people disappear for days while they churn a problem over in their heads - how many managers could cope with such people. The manager for this department must be capable of understanding the man/woman and the technical detail of the project. He would have to provide money and resources to keep things moving while reporting the good, bad and ugly details to a baffled boardroom.

Maybe we should start a new job description - 'Innovation Manager'

Hi Tom. I liked very much your input as I recognized myself in some of your words except the fact that I cannot call myself a self-employed inventor so far.

First, I think something is wrong about filing a patent application 7 years ago and having no feedback. Maybe you didn't pay the examination fee or something - try to find a patent attorney to assist you or at least ask for a consultation which is cheap.

Secondly, I would think to brake your product into a few sub-assemblies and source 2-3 manufacturers for each of them to get quotes. The idea is to leave for you just the assembling work and final testing, protecting the secret of your concept because you don't need to explain to your suppliers what are those sub-assemblies for. Then make your "factory" price /unit.

Thirdly, contact a TV channel and try to get a free advertisement of your product idea through a short reportage in a science/technology program such as Discovery Channel. They are always looking for new subjects. Disseminate that show to several retailers to get a first feedback and possible pre-approval to selling your product.

Finally, put together the foundation for "factory" price/unit, a copy of the TV program and that independent survey on the huge market you claim into a nice business plan and go to a bank to ask for funding. Put your patent as liability as you have nothing else to lose.

I know you're depressed right now, but if you don't try to find a solution (without spending any big money any more) to bring your product on the market, it will become quickly obsolete as the world is turning faster and faster...

Thanks for the input - cheered my day. The trouble with patent application in Europe is its all done through a central orifice in Munich and they are just inundated with work. I pay a Patent attorney about £1,300 per annum to renew the application and have kicked them and Munich a couple of times without much success - seems par for the course for electronic patents! Having reached the golden retirement age I can't now go into any major 'product splash' and my Company is unknown so its a catch 22 situation. Fortunately I now have a second shareholder who is running the final development/marketing through his own Company and I just hope we get some return for all the expenditure and years of hard graft.

I have a friend who is a typical inventor with some really brilliant innovative work covering everything from Missile power supplies to HiFi Amplifiers (£25,000+ each). He finds it very hard to work in a normal Company environment, rarely holds a job for long and is too 'scatty' for the usual investors. He can crack out the most complex working designs within a couple of days which makes contract work a bit of a 'feast and famine existance. A perfect example of a brilliant mind who needs a very special working environment to develop his full potential.

Artists have benefactors and sponsors who let them 'fly free' - why can't engineers enjoy the same without being expected to deliver a useful product in a set time?

Hi Tom,

Machiavelli in the Prince, chapter VI, writes about the difficultiesthat face innovators. [Interestingly he also was a genius and innovator in his field as a political philosopher and also had an unfortunate existence. As a matter of fact he is still has a bad rap and still regarded as Satanic by many who have not read the Prince.]

Anyway, he distinguishes the innovators who stand alone and those who depend on others... great insight... get a copy and enjoy. Let me know what you think.

Cheers

Vince

I know that central patent office in Munich and I took a different path: PCT patent applications to Geneva. After getting their observations and negotiating on terms and claims, next step is the national phase in as many countries you afford, ONE of them (or the only one) being the European patent application which goes to Munich! Up to this point I never waited more than 3 years and the national ones take another, 2 but I don't care because I already have something to trade!

Unfortunately, I'm in the same boat with your friend. I don't consider myself a genius or not even brilliant - just "different" enough to intimidate or scare people who could hire and use me. Real engineering is an art having no recognition and sponsors nowadays... That's why we are just fishing in a see of bad fortune.

I wish you the best of luck.

Michael

Tom,

So what's the answer?. - Persist. Welcome to the club. The fact that your patent is still pending it's to your advantage. Having a patent does not give any protection if one does not have deep pockets to defend it in court.

In my opinion, one way to achieve your goals is to approach an established company who might be in the same field and interested in manufacturing and/or marketing your invention.

Get a Confidentiality Agreement / Non-Disclosure Agreement signed by an Officer of the Corporation before you make any disclosure, mark anything you give out "CONFIDENTIAL". on a need to know basis. Beware: some corporations do not sign any C.A. or NDA. avoid them. The fact that you have a Patent Pending will be a deterrent if you have a CA/NDA signed.

You will find all of the above difficulties, given by the above posts, NIH etc. but you know already the game and prepare for it.

Secondly, go for a Licensing fee ( Dolby did and was very successful),

It might be an easier path than trying to do everything by yourself: mfg+marketing+financing; also much easier than to deal with Venture Capital or private financing.

If you are an inventor you will come up with other ideas and with money, you too can be a recognized "genius". For now you might be fishing in deep waters, all you need is to catch a big one, then you can go fly fishing and have fun.

Good luck.

Vince

'Innovation Manager'

If ever there was an oxymoron...

Hello tom,

Ideas & inovations , inventions are seen as usual by top bosses in the company , let it be any thing , even inovative way to increase sales and production are not considered ideas unless well presented let alone a technological inovation , your companies have established work culture , when you or someone else brings ideas what you feel is inovative but to embed them in the current system is difficult , as owner of the company has to see for other departments and take there points regarding acceptiblity of your idea , Real inventors do isolate from present system when working for there inovations , here the bosses have to maintain there isolations and provide them necessary infrastructure , but that to happen boss must have that forecasting attitude and ability , it is here on as you propose to hire 'Innovative Manager' to take care and coordinate with other department and boss

Hi Vikas

Interesting to see that the thread is still running. Perhaps the innovation mindset should be instilled in every graduate at the start and end of their study years. This is an important consideration for every discipline, law, accountancy, business, not just engineering. After all, the only reason they will have employment at all is thanks to sombody, years earlier, who set a Company up with a 'product'. Unless new products and ideas keep coming and are nurtured their Company will eventally be overtaken and disappear and the jobs with it. Thats also one of the reasons why innovators and good managers change jobs - they want new challenges and horizons and somebody who will listen to them!

My idea of a dedicated 'Innovation Manager' might just work in a big Company, but what we really need is for every line manager to be tasked with introducing at least one good innovative idea to their boss when they do their annual appraisal. That would make even the worst career manager think about the world outside their little box and talk to their backroom people a bit more - it's amazing the number of good ideas that surface over a beer with your team!

Of course the good manager would ensure that the person who came up with the idea got recognition and some reward. Thats where the Company has to fulfill it's side of the 'Innovative Team' principle. Perhaps if the MD/CEO had to present at least one new product or innovative idea to the meeting of shareholders it would concentrate their minds on this issue!

Ah - dream on Tom - this is the 21st century and its somebody elses problem - isn't it???

An even worse type of boss: the power-hungey one who's desperate to be promoted quickly but who's utterly unqualified to do the job. I had the misfortune of having such a boss once. He's not an engineer, yet he insisted on implementing changes that several of us, myself included, warned would have disastrous consequences if carried out. Of course, as typical of this type of manager, he ignored the warnings with predictable results, then he forced us all to cover up the disastrous consequences of his stupidity by falsifying reports. Those who wanted no part of his conspiracy to cover up the truth were harassed into leaving.

Unbelievably, despite his disastrous career history, which included being drummed out of the police because he failed to nab some high-ranking moles in his division, and causing the port authority he worked for to lose 2 billion USD in contracts due to too many capable staff leaving because of his endless restructuring, he is still being groomed for better things, simply because he is a government scholar with friends in high places.

I think this will prove that the chief reason why managers are usually a hindrance to innovation is because they are too busy trying to get themselves promoted rather than trying to get things done.

The author of the Prince isn't hated because he is Satanic, he is hated because he told the truth - and don't be doing it around management, either.

I'm usually a strong advocate of guerrilla innovation, but recent events make me question that anymore. Saw a wonderful box developed by calling various suppliers requesting VERY specific samples under the guise of questioning their ability to produce, while waving the name of a VERY large company to distract them. Got a few odd lots in, did a little quiet testing, a voile! A new LRU, quarter of the cost, great capability - died an early death. No champion to take credit for it at the upper levels.

Two things well worth remembering: all the science dropouts went across the way to business school - but they have the money. Wall Street in all it's years, has never effectively run a company - see above.

And a final parting note - Peters as in Effective Management Techniques and a dozen other titles; finally gave up and admitted there is no effective way to run a company of over 500 people.

Emmett

Don't have the chops to Consult - so I contract instead. - The smell of stupid surrounds me on every new job.

Like I said, I'd rather consult/contract/etc than work directly for all the reasons stated here and then some. This leads to the conclusion that Engineering & Management must be dichotimized because of their divergent interests.

Basically, Innovation requires risk and Management is risk adverse, as they should be. Engineering will assume risk, but bad Engineering will take too much risk, and not meet the projects goal. Bad management won't take risk, missing opportunities, and stunting growth. Management has never embrassed a "disruptive technology" while encouraging Engineering to find one. "He said,.... She said...." The list is endless. So, what's the answer? "Managed Innovation"?? Too ludicrous to contemplate!!

To the point; The only impediment to Innovation is the individual. Look at some of the most innovative and disruptive technology of the last century. Tesla, Steinmetz, Einstein and many more. The first PC was cobbled together at IBM and they fired the guys who did it. Even Kodak fired the guy who invented micro-fiche, ITEK? "I Took Eastman Kodak". Engineers do have a sense of humour...

I think what I'm hearing is Minnesota Fats, "Where's da cheese?". Okay, fair question. How do you compensate an innovative Engineer? The answer is marketing, manufacturing, and sales. Allow exposure to these areas. Learn why selling price is 3 to 5 times BOM, all the basic stuff. If you have a good idea, go out and make it, and sell it. I did, and it's not all that simple. In my career of some 40 odd years I've only seen one guy "do it all" back at TRG in the late 60's.

So I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but being innovative won't buy you much economically unless you can cash in on the product(s) success by making it. Even then there's that "engineering mentality" to be dealt with. Just because your mouse traps better, the world won't beat a path to your door! You need to dispose of that myth! You have to sell it!!

So what is the "compensation package" for a really innovative engineer? That's what becomes murky. The only legal instrument is the Patent. Didn't Musician and Songwriters solve this? Regardless of their affiliation? Maybe patents should include some legal, financial, obligation of the Manufacturer to the Patentee ? Similar to a Copyright, and enforceable internationally.

At the end of this there seems no clear cut relationship between economic success and engineering ability, QED.