3.6. GENERATING NEW IDEAS

Precise definition of how new ideas are generated and how results from R&D are converted into innovation are hard to articulate. In an article entitled "Serendipity or Sound Science?" Sutton (1986) points out that the Nobel Prize to Burton Richter and Samuel Ting resulted from discoveries that, though unexpected, were nonetheless the result of a lifetime of careful research. Sutton shows that the way to unexpected results lies not in accidents, but in excellence and in thorough scientific investigation with the best possible intellectual and laboratory resources.

An article entitled "The Acid Test of Innovation" (Bell et al., 1986, p. 32) provides several examples of innovation; it concludes as follows:

Serendipity, self-interest, concentrated and coordinated work: all these are characteristics of successful innovation. But the single most important lesson of these examples is the importance of keeping in touch. Academics need to know what their local industries can do and what they might be interested in making and marketing in the future. Companies, large and small, benefit by having key personnel who can keep up with scientific literature and what is going on in university departments to which they have easy access.

Many innovations occur when facts from previously unrelated fields of knowledge are brought together in a creative solution. For example, a process used in the chemical industry may prove useful in the textile industry. Many other innovations require the redefinition of the problem. For example, for thousands of years horses were used to draw chariots, until it occurred to some warriors that they could ride them, giving them speed not available until that time.

Since such redefinitions are inhibited by conventional wisdom, people without such wisdom (e.g., the newcomers) are often more creative than those steeped in conventional ideas.

MacKinnon (1962) has summarized research on creativity that suggests that creative people are more open to their feelings, have a better understanding of themselves, have a wide range of interests, and have many interests that U.S. culture classifies as feminine (e.g., an interest in the arts). They tend to be uninterested in small details and more interested in the broad picture and its implications. They possess cognitive flexibility and verbal skills and are good communicators and intellectually curious, but they are not interested in policing their own impulses.

Intelligence and creativity are not correlated in the case of IQs in the 120 (ability to do college-level work) to genius range. In other words, there are many examples of modestly intelligent individuals who are extremely creative and extraordinarily intelligent individuals who are not.

Creativity depends on both people and environment. A creative environment takes into account both external and internal factors, such as the employees and the pace of change within an industry. Perez-Freije and Enkel (2007) found that creativity can be a direct result of the change within one's industry. For example, in a fast-changing environment, higher levels of creativity will be needed to meet changing demands; whereas in a slow-changing environment improvements that can be achieved through quality and efficiency may be more appropriate. In regard to internal factors a creative work environment allows creative scientists to feel free to work in areas of their greatest interest, provides them with many rewards and recognition, allows them to have broad contacts with stimulating colleagues, encourages them to take moderate risks, and tolerates some failures and nonconformity.

Numerous techniques have been suggested that supposedly improve creativity. Among them we will mention teaching the scientist to ask questions such as "Should I adapt, modify, reduce, substitute, rearrange, reverse, or combine the processes under consideration?" Brainstorming (Osborn, 1979), synectics (Gordon, 1968), lateral thinking, need assessment (Holt et al., 1984), and combinations of the above (Carson and Rickards, 1979) have been suggested. There are also analytic techniques (for a review see Twiss, 1992) that follow logical analysis (the analysis of the attributes of the products that need to be developed) and morphological analysis (the study of the needs of customers, technologists, and marketers, as well as the systematic monitoring of technological developments).

Each of these techniques has enthusiastic proponents, but systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of the techniques are lacking. In the few cases where careful evaluation was done, it did not support the claims of the proponents. However, one could argue that careful evaluation in laboratory settings may not generalize to the field.

The general idea of most of these techniques is to involve many people in the creative process, to use a number of different ways of generating ideas, to find ways to systematically eliminate those ideas that are unlikely to be workable, and to keep eliminating until one idea survives. This new product would be one of a myriad of potential ones, but many perspectives will converge in support of it.

In many of these techniques, one is supposed to "suspend criticism" during the idea-generation phase. Thus, in brainstorming one is allowed to suggest any idea, no matter how unworkable. In synectics, one is supposed to link apparently irrelevant elements and be free from the constraints of critical judgment and the boundaries of orthodox ideas. One states and restates the problem, makes analogies, uses fantasy, and is encouraged to produce paradoxical ideas, such as "dependable unreliability" or "living death." In lateral thinking, one is supposed to challenge assumptions, focus attention on different aspects of the problem, generate many solutions, and introduce irrelevant ideas and even discontinuities in thinking about the problem. In need assessment, one examines the existing, future, emotional, and rational needs of customers, technologists, and marketers with respect to a particular product.

Since systematic evaluation of these techniques is not available, we offer this advice. Speak to several "expert" trainers who advocate each of these techniques. Select two or three of these techniques on the basis of how promising they may be in relation to your particular products or problems. Randomly assign problems to techniques and have experts lead your groups through the creativity phase utilizing each technique. Evaluate results by examining which technique produced the best set of results.

This approach seems wise because it is likely that your products or problems can be better solved with one approach than with another. In short, it is not clear that a particular technique will prove effective for all problems. Your problems may well have some industry-specific characteristics. Thus, by experimenting, you should be able to identify the unique combination of techniques that is most helpful in solving your particular kind of problem.

Successful innovators pay close attention to their users' needs and desires (Quinn, 1985), avoid detailed early technical or marketing plans, and allow entrepreneurial teams to pursue competing alternatives within a clearly conceived framework of goals and limits. A number of important patterns contribute to innovation (Quinn, 1985, p. 77):

Atmosphere and Vision. This includes providing the proper environment, value system, and atmosphere (perhaps culture of the organization) to support the innovation process. Perhaps an executive vision (having goals that move the organization toward societally valued achievements) is more important than a particular management background. Managers with executive ability project clear long-term goals for their organizations that go beyond simple economic measures. Such vision, combined with a creative organizational culture, is likely to lead to an innovative organization.

Orientation to the Market. Since innovation involves doing research and development activities that are commercially useful, innovative companies inevitably have to tie their activities to the realities of the marketplace. This means keeping in touch with the user.

Small, Flat Organizations. This means an organization with two or three levels and project teams that are small (fewer than seven).

Multiple Approaches. Since many positive results might come from unexpected approaches, it is important not to narrow the investigation too early. Thus, management should not overdirect the approach used for research and development activities, at least not early on.

Developmental Shootouts. It may be desirable to use parallel and competing developments for an activity. While the cost of such an activity may seem high, this duplication may provide the most efficient and effective output. These developmental competitions or shootouts among competing approaches perhaps can be handled best when the project reaches a certain prototype stage. Quinn (1985) points out that one of the problems associated with such an approach is the issue of managing the reintegration of the members of the losing team.

Skunkworks. According to Quinn (1985, p. 79), for every highly innovative enterprise in the research sample he studied, a small-company environment was emulated by using groups that functioned in a "skunkworks style." In this approach, small teams of engineers, technicians, designers, and others were placed together with no other intervening organizational or visible physical barriers to developing a new product from the idea stage to the final commercialization stage. This approach has been used successfully in many Japanese companies. Quinn (1985, p. 79) gives the example of Soichiro Honda, who was known for working directly on technical problems and who emphasized his technical points by personally working with other members of the "skunkworks team."

Interactive Learning. While "skunkworks" emulate the highly interactive and motivating learning environment that characterizes many successful ventures, there is also the need for interactive learning achieved by close contact with the wider scientific community. Even the largest research organization represents only a small fraction of the total research investment internationally and, in turn, only a small fraction of the enormous intellectual and technological resources available and necessary for generating new ideas and innovation.