Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

It is not the strongest of the species that survives,

nor the most intelligent, but the one most


responsive to change.
Charles Darwin
Human thought and ingenuity affect every sphere
of life. We all have good ideas and even more not-so-
good ones. Then there are those concepts that have
gradually transformed our society over generations or
have provided reliable and robust solutions to every-
day problems. A distinctly influential force called
innovation propelled them.
Innovation is essential, more
than ever, to safeguard and
deliver high-quality technolo-
gies, successful businesses, bet-
ter products and services, and
new and more environmentally
friendly processes for our
future prosperity. Innovation
runs across all economic sec-
tors and affects communities of
all sizes. In fact, our ability to
raise our living standards signif-
icantly depends on maximizing
innovation throughout the vari-
ous structures and hierarchies
within our global economy.
Worldwide, consumer
expectations are increasing for
more sophisticated services and
advanced products. Shorter
product life cycles are forcing
the industry to respond faster through the process of
continuous innovation. The focal point now is form-
ing an innovation culture that encapsulates the best
practices from conception through development.
The I mantra
Innovation is primarily driven by Imaginationthe
readiness to redefine what could be; Inquirycuriosi-
ty, discovery and learning; and Initiativethe readi-
ness to do. These three feed and interact with each
other. There are other I words we could use here,
but these three form the intersecting core.
Innovation keeps organizations alive through con-
tinuous renewal and growth. Without innovative
ideas, organizations stagnate. Hirshberg (1998) states,
Innovation requires the capacity to disdain tradition
and break with comfortable routines and mastered
skills. This is a very difficult thing for most enterpris-
es to do.
Peter Drucker, in Innovation and Entrepreneurship
(1985), defines innovation as the purposeful and sys-
tematic search for change and opportunity the
effort to create purposeful, focused change in an
enterprises economic or social potential. He adds,
Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneurs, the
means by which they exploit change as an opportuni-
ty for a different business or service. It is capable of
being presented as a discipline, capable of being
learned, and capable of being practiced with a high
capacity to create wealth.
Joseph Schumpeter, a theorist of capitalist economic
development in the 20th century, defined in his The
Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into
profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle
(1911), the following five scenarios as innovation:
1) Developing new products and services;
2) Developing new methods of production;
3) Identifying new markets;
4) Discovering new sources of supply, and
5) Developing new organizational forms.
Innovation does not rely upon convergent think-
ing. Innovation depends on
divergent thinking, on the
ability to change and move in
directions that are specifically
non-traditional. In Edward De
Bonos words, it depends on
lateral thinking. In his Later-
al Thinking: Creativity Step by
Step, (1973) he says, Lateral
thinking is quite distinct from
vertical thinking, which is the
traditional type of thinking. In
vertical thinking one moves
forward in sequential steps
each of which must be justi-
fiedin lateral thinking one
uses information not for its
own sake but for its effect. In
lateral thinking one may have
to be wrong at some stage in
order to achieve a correct
solution; in vertical thinking
(logic or mathematics) this would be impossible. In
lateral thinking one may deliberately seek out irrele-
vant information; in vertical thinking one selects out
only what is relevant.
The equation
Innovation = Creativity * Risk-taking
Take a minute to reflect on the equation we just
presented. Foster and Kaplan (2001) state, The
underlying element in all innovation is creativity. Only
by understanding creativity can one grapple with
what is needed for sustained performance.
Creativity is the ability to develop new ideas.
Those ideas may be as mundane as turning eggshells
into little faces or as sublime as the great pyramids of
Egypt. They may be as practical as the saltshaker or as
absurd as a wrist watch for dogs. Regardless of scope
or usefulness, creativity is synonymous with new
ideas (Byrd, 1974).
Creativity is measured by originality. And we all
exhibit some amount of creativity. But let us not con-
fuse the ability to think up something new with intelli-
gence. People often assume that originality and
4 0278-6648/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE IEEE POTENTIALS
Innovate or evaporate
Guruprasad Madhavan and Diana Anderson

R
u
b
b
e
r
a
l
l

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s


C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
:
M
K
C
intelligence are correlated. There is little evidence to
support this assumption. People with average intelli-
gence do exhibit original ideas, and some of the
brightest people seldom have original thoughts.
We know creativitys value, but it will sit dormant
unless we stimulate it. This is where the gift of moti-
vation becomes so crucial. Those of us who possess
creativity and motivation to shift gear our ideas to the
next level are the ones who power the engine of
change and progress.
The second component of innovation is risk-taking.
Taking risks is the only way that creative ideas become
reality, where risk is a deliberately willed activity that
creates and accelerates change. Risk-taking means that
a person is willing to push his or her ideas forward at
possible loss to his or her own security, career, reputa-
tion or self-esteem. Risk-taking is the ability to drive
new ideas forward in the face of adversity.
However, risk-taking is not an inborn trait. That is,
we are not born a high or a low risk taker. In fact,
there is an innate resistance to taking risks beyond
what is acceptable in our immediate environment.
Many of us work with people who are afraid to
take risks; as a result they do nothing. Organizations
miss critical opportunities playing it safe, as well. But,
often, those companies afraid to take a risk and fail,
end up failing anyhow.
Rarely do we find ourselves with all the data to
make a failsafe decision. And if we do find ourselves
in such a situation, we have mitigated all of the risk out
of the equation. But taking risks just to take risks is
pointless. There must be a positive payoff. People who
take risks just for the sake of taking risks are addicted
to the thrill, not to the appropriateness of the risk given
the situation and the potential loss(es) and gain(s).
Sources of systematic innovation
Consistent change provides opportunities for the
new and the different. Drucker defines systematic
innovation as, the purposeful and organized search
for changes and in the systematic analysis of the
opportunities such changes might offer for economic
or social innovation. The overwhelming majority of
successful innovations are prosaic and exploit change.
Thus, the discipline of innovation is a diagnostic disci-
pline. Drucker points out seven sources that might
contribute toward innovative opportunities. The first
four are symptoms that lie within the organization or
enterprise.
The four (internal) source areas are:
1. The unexpectedbe it an unexpected success
or failure or an unexpected event;
2. The incongruitybetween what actually hap-
pens and what was supposed to happen;
3. Innovation based on process need the inade-
quacy in the underlying processes, things that are
taken for granted but can be improved or changed;
4. Changes in industry structure or market structure
that takes everyone by surprise.
The second set of sources for innovative opportu-
nity, a set of three, involves changes outside the enter-
prise or organization. They include:
5. Demographicspopulation changes caused by
changes in birth rates, wars, medical improvements, etc.;
6. Changes in perception, mood, and meaning
that can be brought about by the ups and downs of
the economy, culture fashion and so on, and
7. New knowledgeboth scientific and non-scien-
tific.
To add to the completeness of the above seven
sources, an eighth source could be:
8. The bright ideathis one might actually outrank
the preceding seven
sources put together. The
reason is the significant
improvement in the issuing
of new patents and forma-
tion of start-ups based sole-
ly on the newer inventions.
But please note, the bright
idea is not a critical player
in the process of systematic
innovation.
Three broad
categories
With so many types of
innovation currently
around, trying to segment
the existing types can be
awkward. However, we
have grouped innovations
into three broad cate-
gories:
1) Product innovations
relate to the invention of a
product, or the improve-
ment of product character-
istics, so that it is more
sales worthy. They take
into account consumption
behaviors and the segmen-
tation of demand. They
can be part of a concept, a
technology or a presenta-
tion. For instance, the Boe-
ing 747 was a product
innovation, because it
brought a new concept,
i.e. a plane with huge seat-
ing capacities in a market
that focused on small or
medium seating capacity
planes. A new product
necessarily emerges from a
former strategic segmentation, expressed either by a
segment creation, the split-up or the fusion of one or
more segments.
2) Process innovations relate to the production
process. For example, the Toyota adopted the
Kaizen system of improving organizational produc-
tion during the 1970s. Kaizen is a Japanese term that
literally means "good change." Pronounced kigh-zen,
it refers to an ancient Zen philosophy that prescribes
constant, small, gradual improvement, rather than big,
APRIL/MAY 2005 5
Performance
Exponential
Growth
Total Impact
Time
Point of Rupture
Time
Performance
Time
Performance
1
2
3
4
5
Fig. 1 The S-Curve can be described by three
param eters: rupture, exponential
growth and total im pact.
Fig. 2 An S-curve is the result of the com po-
sition of sm aller S-curves.
Fig. 3 Phases of technology innovation: (1)
Rupture, (2) Early developm ent (3)
Expansion, (4) M aturation and (5)
Saturation
bold, sudden, seismic change. Kaizen was rediscov-
ered, ironically, by an American management consul-
tant, Edwards Deming, who used it to maximize the
quality of manufacturing during World War II. After
the war, Deming then introduced the concept to Toy-
ota. Kaizen, then, is credited for the blindsiding and
dethroning of the American automobile industry dur-
ing the 1980s by the Japanese, who trained their
workers to focus on manageable, incremental
improvements at a time when U.S. car manufacturers
were thinking bigger and better.
Another example is the QB House, a Japanese firm
that offers a two-minute haircut. On top of the door,
three lights, green,
orange and red,
give customers an
indication of the
wait. (Red means
more than five min-
utes, orange
between one and
five minutes, green for less than one minute.) In this
case, innovation comes from a radical change in the
process. Cutting hair is usually a long process, with an
established relationshipa socialization process
between the customer and the hairdresser. This stan-
dardization targets people who want fast, anonymous
and efficient service.
3) Organizational innovations give firms a corpo-
rate structure adjusted to current market needs and
capacities. Examples of organizational innovations are
numerous. For instance in the 1990s, made to order,
or multi-functional matrix groups, were implement-
ed to improve productivity and efficiency.
An example of organizational innovation is provid-
ed by the State in Singapores actions during the last
few decades. One could argue that with ongoing
globalization the governments control over cross-bor-
der flows of products and services is weakened.
But Singapore by implementing a strategy, known
as complementary assets, to attract foreign corporate
investment has shown that national governments play
a crucial role in influencing healthy business activities.
Singapore understood perfectly the power shift
between mobile and less mobile factors in economic
growth, and invested in the creation of a network of
government-linked
companies. The
government effec-
tively filled business
areas such as
tourism, entrepre-
neurship, and small business development where
multi-national corporations were not interested in
investing. Through this action, Singapore increased its
geographical value.
For each of the three types of innovations we have
just defined, there are additionally two degrees of
innovation: radical (entirely new product or service
category and production delivery system) or incre-
mental (innovation is due to the adaptation or refine-
ment and enhancement of existing products and
services).
Forms
Innovations may assume specific forms as well. We
illustrate these forms using examples from the domain
of electricity in the 19th century. Innovations may
have the form of an ontology of concepts that enable
analysis. (Ontology is the branch of philosophy that
deals with the nature of being.) For example, state-
ments about electricity require an ontology composed
of such concepts as voltage, current, resistance, capaci-
tance and inductance. Each of these concepts is based
(that is, grounded) on observable measurements (per-
formance metrics). The emergence of this ontology,
and the accompanying metrics, made it possible to rea-
son and communicate about electric circuits.
Innovations may also take the form of theories that
predict and explain phenomena. For example, Fara-
day discovered a relation between magnetism and
electric charge. That made it possible to design a
plethora of electrical devices. However, the theory
could only be stated formally once the ontology and
its measures were established.
Innovation may take the form of methods of analy-
sis. For example, analyses of electrical circuits were
made possible by Kirchoff's laws for current and volt-
age. Analysis of communication systems was made
possible by the introduction of Fourier domain analy-
sis by Nyquist, Shannon and others.
Innovations may also be the design for a device.
Faraday's law made it possible to design devices that
converted between kinetic energy and electric poten-
tial (motors and generators). Over the years, many
new forms of electric motors and electric generators
have been invented, refined and exploited. Each
motor can be compared to others based on a common
set of measurable properties such as efficiency or
torque.
Innovations may be the systems architectures com-
posed of multiple independent devices. Thomas Edis-
on's creation of an electrical power distribution system
was a revolutionary innovation that could be mea-
sured in terms of number of electrical devices con-
structed or total electric power generated.
More frequently, however, innovations often are
improvements to existing devices or architectures.
George Westinghouse surplanted Thomas Edison by
transmitting power using alternating current. The
improvement in transmission efficiency led to impor-
tant economic advantages.
Achieving success in the process
All human endeavors rely upon competency,
resources, opportunity, will and support; planning for
success must accommodate these five factors.
Competency: Direction and vision are essential to
sustained positive energy. High expertise: in the tech-
nology, identifying the market and addressing the
need is essential to achievement.
Resources: Resources are often restricted and not
simply the financial sort. For example, issues might
circle around facilities, raw materials or communica-
tions.
Opportunity: Opportunity includes the ability to
contribute to the organizations future as well as its
6 IEEE POTENTIALS
Nearly every person who develops an idea
works up to the point where it looks impossible,
and then he gets discouraged. That's not the
place to become discouraged.
Thomas Edison
If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is
no hope for it.
Albert Einstein
APRIL/MAY 2005 7
Innova tion a t w ork in the 1 9 6 0 s
Arnold Spitalny
In 1961 I was asked if, in addition to my other duties, I would mind taking management responsibility for that computer stuff that no
one really understood. My other duties at that time, as a Senior Systems Engineer at the Norden Division of United Aircraft (later United
Technologies), were system planning and proposals for new weapon control systems and for aircraft and submarine display and control
systems. The computer stuff was a large analog computer facility for simulation analysis and a little IBM 1620 computer. (It was used
mostly for some simple simulation analysis.)
IBM back then rented the digital computer hardware and provided the software for free. The software was mostly just the operating
system and the compilers. There was no commercially available application software. However, some software was also available from
the IBM user group, SHARE (Society to Help Avoid Redundant Effort). My first action was to obtain a program from SHARE for monitor-
ing and recording computer utilization. This created a computer record of who was using how much computer time for what applications.
About a year later, IBM invited a group of computer facility managers, including myself, to see how they were using computers to
help design computers. Afterwards, I wrote a trip report explaining what they did. The report suggested that we consider how the com-
puter might be used to assist engineers in the design of our products. Coincidentally, United had sent Norden a new Engineering Vice
President (VP). When the new VP came around to introduce himself, he had a copy of my report and asked for more specific recom-
mendations. Thus, at the request of the new VP, I went to each engineering department manager and asked each one about his groups
engineering tasks and potential computer applications. When the VP then asked the Department Managers what they thought about
using the computer for engineering work, they were all for it because their input had been sought and included.
The next problem was how to develop all the new computer applications. IBM had provided a set of textbooks for a FORTRAN
(FORmula TRANslation) programming language course. I gave the course to a group of interested engineers reading a chapter ahead
of the class. Soon the engineers who excelled in the programming course said they wanted to work for me; their managers said they
wanted me to be responsible for developing computer applications for their other engineers to use. As a result, I soon had four little
computer support groups:
1. electrical design support; circuit analysis and circuit board layout and routing
2. mechanical and optical design support; stress and vibration analysis and optical pattern projections and optimization
3. design data systems; parts lists by product, assembly and subassembly and cable wiring lists. (The design data programs were
written in COBOL (Common Business Oriented Language) instead of FORTRAN.)
4. computer operations
I then asked IBM if they could provide assistance in software development for any of these applications, but especially for circuit
analysis. (Note: At that time, circuit design involved a lot of trial and error experimentation using lab models called breadboards
because of the fast change experimental assembly method used. Another company had tried selling me a computer on the basis that they
had a circuit analysis program that worked on it. So I asked IBM if they had anything like it.) They introduced me to a group of IBM mathe-
maticians who were developing software for matrix analysis. It could be applied to the simultaneous equations for multiple loop circuits.
We agreed to jointly develop a program, with Norden responsible for defining the user-friendly input-output formats and IBM writing
the program. However, a problem arose when an IBM lawyer sent me a request to not tell anyone about this joint effort before they offi-
cially released the final program. Software they planned to call IBSNAP (IBM System of Network Analysis Program). I had one of my
engineers prepare a printout from punched cards of what a simple circuit analysis output would look like that illustrated our recommend-
ed input and output formats. When the IBM lawyer arrived for a meeting, I showed him the printout and asked him if he could tell
whether it had been produced with a program developed by IBM or by Norden. I then told him there was no way we would participate in
anything whose results we could not use in our projects or tell our customers about. Also, if IBM called the program IBSNAP, we would
call our version NORNAP (NORDEN Network Analysis Program).
The final result was ECAP (Electronic Circuit Analysis Program), with no restrictions on Nordens use of the early versions prior to
the official IBM release and distribution. This software was the first widely used Circuit Analysis Program that replaced experimental lab
breadboard circuits with computer simulations.
Note: The Computer Utilization Records, prepared with the help of the early SHARE software, was used from the beginning to gen-
erate a monthly Computer Utilization Report that went to all engineering managers and computer users. In the beginning, users were
also sent monthly questionnaires listing how much computer time they used that month for each combination of project and application.
They were also asked how many hours it would take to do this work without a computer. When I stopped getting answers to the hours-
without-the-computer question, I stopped asking. Keep in mind engineering work obviously was being done before the engineers started
using the computer. However, it was slower, less accurate, more experimental and less analytical. But, some things done with the com-
puter really could not have been attempted manually. In fact, the computer provided the basis for new products that otherwise would not
have been possible.
Total computer hours per month, with scale adjustments for facility changes that improved throughput, were plotted on semi-log
paper. The graph produced a straight line that showed a doubling every 10 months for many years. No disruption occurred to this usage
pattern when the computer facility costs were removed from overhead and allocated directly to projects in proportion to the computer
time each project took.
Arnold Spitalny worked from 1955 to 1969 for Norden. Other companies include SSDS (Solid State Data Systems), ITT Labs and
Spitalny and Co. as an independent consultant. He has a BEE from New York University and an MBA from the University of Connecticut.
day-to-day tasks. Many people find themselves
trapped in tasks that do not allow for participation in
innovation and yet they are expected to be innovative.
Will: Enthusiasm and drive rely on congruency
between the teams priorities and those of the organi-
zation. Team will is also about sense of purpose,
achievement, control and belonging that come with
working on a project.
Support: Support includes access to supervisors
and superiors, their true enthusiasm for the project
and for the team. Leader engagement is critical. The
leader participates as a team member or mentor not
solely as a supervisor!
The virtuous cycle
The interaction of innovations tends to multiply
performance. As a result, the accumulation of innova-
tions leads to an exponential growth in performance.
The exponential nature of such growth has been
widely documented and is widely known as the S
curve, shown in Fig. 1 [Dent, 1993, and Rogers, 1995].
The S curve is, in fact, a cumulative Gaussian distrib-
ution resulting from the compounding of several inter-
acting innovations. Each innovation provides its own
smaller S curve, as shown in Fig. 2.
An exponential growth in performance is the result
of a virtuous cycle composed of the interactions
between research, innovation and economic impact.
In this spiral, the promise of economic gain leads to
the allocation of resources for research. Research pro-
duces innovation. Innovation triggers a generation of
wealth. The resulting wealth provides resources for
research.
All three components are fundamental. As long as
the three components (or phases) of the cycle contin-
ue, innovations will accumulate and performance will
grow exponentially. The virtuous spiral breaks when
any of its three components attains some limit. For
example, saturating the potential for generating eco-
nomic benefit will result in a decline in the economic
impact of innovations. This decline in turn results in a
decline in resources for research that results in a
decline in innovation.
In some cases, the decline is due to a physical
limit. The growth rate is the exponential coefficient
that characterizes the growth (of the industry based on
the new technology). For example, Gordon Moore has
observed that transistor density in integrated circuits
doubles every 12 months, leading to a doubled com-
puting power on a chip every 18 months (cited as
Moores Law). An important measure of the impact of
innovation is the discontinuous change in the expo-
nential growth rate. Such a change is called rupture.
The incremental growth rate is an important measure
of the impact of innovation.
The incremental growth rate is a direct result of the
economic return on investment in research. Such
growth is conditioned by a number of factors, includ-
ing the propensity of the economic and the adminis-
trative climate towards innovation. The duration of an
S-curve is determined by the exponential coefficient
and the impact. For a cumulative Gaussian trend, this
is measured by the second moment (or standard devi-
8 IEEE POTENTIALS
Defining the entrepreneur
The term entrepreneur is derived from the old French
entreprende, which can be explained as a person who
organizes, operates and assumes the risk for business
ventures, especially an impresario. William Baumol, how-
ever, suggests there are two distinct functions to being
an entrepreneur,
There are, however, two uses of the term entrepre-
neur which, though both legitimate, are entirely different
in their substance. One uses the term to refer to some-
one who creates and then, perhaps, organizes and oper-
ates a new busi ness fi rm, whether or not there i s
anything innovative in those acts. The second takes the
entrepreneur as the innovatoras the one who trans-
forms inventions and ideas into economical viable enti-
ties, whether or not, in the course of doing so they create
or operate a firm.
Hence, one meaning is to survive for the present and
the second interpretation is to make advances for the
future. Survival for the present obligates one to take cer-
tain risks, to respect routines, to be organized, to be dili-
gent and to be willing to engage in the repetitive, among
many other qualities. The advancement for the future, on
the other hand, requires one to have vision, to take risk,
and to be innovative. According to Schumpter, this innov-
ative aptitude is present in only a small fraction of the
population.
According to David McClelland, the need for achieve-
mentor N-achievementis the most distinguishable
quality of entrepreneurs. He writes...it is internal factors,
the human values and motives that lead man to exploit
opportunities, to take advantage of favorable trade condi-
tions; in sort, to shape his own destiny...Desire to
achieve can never be satisfied by money, but estimates
of profitability in money terms can provide concrete
knowledge of how well one is doing ones job.
Ying Lowrey
Excerpted and adapted from, The Entrepreneur and Entre-
preneurship: A neoclassical approach, a working paper from the
Office of Advocacy, US Small Business Administration
US small firms . . .
1) Represent 99.7 percent of all employers
2) Generated 60 to 80% of net new jobs annually
over the last decade.
3) Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employ-
ee than large patenting firms. These patents also are
twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one
percent most cited.
4) In 2003, there were an estimated 572,900 new
firms, 554,800 firm closures and 35,037 bankruptcies.
5) Two-thirds of new employer firms survive at least
two years and about half survive at least four years.
Source: US Small Business Administration
ation) of the derivative (the Gaussian density func-
tion). The impact is an important measure for choos-
ing between competing public policy decisions, for
example, passing of congressional bills, allocation of
federal funds for healthcare research, elevating home-
land security and so forth.
More specifically, the S-curve permits the process
of technology innovation to be described in terms of
five phases, as shown in Fig. 3. The phases tend to
determine the nature of the innovation. For example,
Rupture (phase 1) tends to result from a new theory
or method, often made possible by a new ontology or
the emergence of enabling technologies. Early devel-
opment (phase 2) tends to be characterized by refine-
ment to ontologies, theories and methods, and by
innovation in the form of new devices or systems.
Expansion (phase 3) is generally characterized by the
emergence of a dominant design for devices or sys-
tems, and refinements to component devices or tech-
nologies. Maturation (phase 4) and Saturation (phase
5) mark a period of diminishing returns on invest-
ment, and refinements to devices or systems.
Thriving in this era
Innovation is an undisputed catalyst for societys
growth, yet many of us fail to exploit the opportunity
or lack a climate that encourages and rewards innova-
tion. To overcome this deficiency, Drucker (1993)
offers the following advice:
Analyze the opportunities, inside the firm and its
industry and in the external environment. Do not
innovate for the future, innovate for the present. Tim-
ing is everything. The right idea at the wrong time is
worth nothing.
Innovation is both conceptual and perceptual.
Therefore, look at the financial implications but also
talk to people, particularly customers, and analyze
how to meet the opportunity.
The innovation has to be simple and focused to
be effective. Dont try to be too clever. Dont try to do
too many things at once.
Start small to be effective. Dont be grandiose.
Take an incremental approach.
Aim at leadership and dominate the competition
in the particular area of innovation as soon as possible.
In summary, as an innovator, you need to inculcate
the following primary abilities to progress toward your
dream:
1) SensitivityTo see implied problems and oppor-
tunities;
2) FluencyAbility to produce a large numbers of
ideas;
3) NoveltyAbility to produce unusual but apt
ideas;
4) FlexibilityAbility to change frames of reference;
5) AnalysisTo deal with larger sets of information;
6) SynthesisTo construct from diverse information;
7) ComplexityTo simultaneously deal with multi-
ple factors;
8) EvaluationTo produce valued difference from
ideas;
9) CourageTo redefine, to advocate, and to be
wrong! and
10) Enjoy absurdityTo let ideas run.
Thus, it might be prudent to conclude with another
quote from Albert Einstein:
Ideas are a dime a dozen but people who put them
into action are PRICELESS.
Only the resourceful will prevail. Got innovation?
Read more about it
Managing Creativity and Innovation, (Harvard
Business Essentials) Harvard Business School Press,
(2003)
D. C. Mowery and N. Rosenberg, Paths of Inno-
vation, Cambridge University Press, (1998)
D. Leonard, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building
and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Harvard
Business School Press, (1998)
E. Bono, Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by
Step, Perennial, (1973)
E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of innovations, New
York: The Free Press, (1995)
H. Dent, The Great Boom Ahead, Hyperion
Press, (1993)
J. A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy, New York: Harper & Brothers, (1950)
J. Byrd and P.L.Brown, The Innovation Equa-
tion: Building Creativity and Risk-Taking in Your
Organization, Pfeiffer, (2002)
J. Hirshberg, The Creative Priority: Driving Inno-
vative Business in the Real World, HarperCollins Pub-
lishers, (1998)
J. M. Utterback, Mastering the Dynamics of
Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, (1994)
M. Gladstone, The tipping point: Or how little
things can make a big difference. New York: Little
Brown and Company, (2000)
P. Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
Harper Business, (1985)
R. Foster and S.Kaplan, Creative Destruction:
Why Companies That Are Built to Last Underperform
the Market and How to Successfully Transform Them,
Currency, (2001)
T.Y. Cao, Conceptual Developments in 20th
Century Field Theories, Cambridge Univ. Press,
(1997)
Resource websites
http://www.thinksmart.com
http://www.entrepreneurship.com
http://www.innovation.gov.uk
About the authors
Guruprasad Madhavan is an Associate Editor of
IEEE Potentials from the Department of Bioengineer-
ing, Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering &
Applied Science, and the School of Management, State
University of New York, Binghamton, New York. He
can be reached at <guru@binghamton.edu>.
Diana Anderson is an M.S Candidate in the Depart-
ment of Bioengineering, Thomas J. Watson School of
Engineering & Applied Science at the State University
of New York, Binghamton, New York. She can be
reached at <diana.anderson@binghamton.edu>.
APRIL/MAY 2005 9

S-ar putea să vă placă și