Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
On Innovation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Stealth Profession: How Do Engineers and R&D Benefit the Nation? . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Innovation is the latest buzzword rolling off everyone’s lips. And innovation seems to be the
new raison d’etre. People, employees, managers and corporate executives are all striving to
be innovative.
It is an easy word to toss around. Many companies that include innovation in their mission
statements also list innovation, or being innovative, as one of their core values — and some
see innovation as part of their competitive strategies.
But, what do we mean by innovation and how do we get more of it?
Joyce Wycoff, executive director of the Innovation Network in Denver, Colorado, writes:
Some organizations are acknowledged as “innovative” by virtue of their flow of new prod-
ucts or services (3M, HP, Rubbermaid, Fedex). Perhaps a better definition of organizational
innovation would relate to the ability to intentionally change to meet new opportunities.
Wycoff explains that the definition incorporates three primary aspects:
• Having a common direction or vision
• Recognizing and deciding on opportunities related to the vision
• Intentionally and effectively moving in a direction to achieve the objective
She says that the better organization establishes an environment that supports these activities
and the more people within the organization who are following the path, the more innovative it
will be in every aspect of its activities. Further, Wycoff writes that the challenges of organiza-
tional information seem to be:
• D
eveloping and communicating a powerful vision to every person within the
organization.
• C
reating an environment that welcomes and continuously searches for opportunities
— one with a rich flow of ideas, information and interaction within the organization ...
among customers, the environment, competitors, suppliers and employees at all lev-
els and functions. It is a risk-tolerant environment that celebrates successes, as well
as great tries that didn’t work. This environment is also “fair play” and shares respect,
rewards and responsibilities at all levels.
• S
timulating effective action on opportunities at the individual, team, group and organi-
zation level — creating a system with enough freedom or “play” in it to allow time for
thinking, freedom to tinker around with new stuff, resources for experimenting, effec-
tiveness training opportunities open to all, and a constant incubation of pilot projects ...
a constantly evolving learning lab.
With all of this deep thinking, energy and action revolving around innovation going on —
our world is bound to become a better place...right?
introduction
6 Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know
By Gus Gaynor
What Is Innovation?
Innovation in the abstract has little meaning — it exists in an organizational context and in the
real world. It cannot be considered as a single-issue. Innovation also involves invention and
creativity. It is multi-disciplinary, multi-functional, and global. Its success depends on the in-
novators, support people, management’s willingness to deal with frustration and uncertainties,
and the qualitative and quantitative input to decision processes. Investing in the innovator or
the innovation comes with no guarantees.
Invention
Idea generation comes before invention. We don’t know much about how ideas occur. As an
example, why did the inventor of 3M’s Post-it!® notes come up with the idea when he did? He
sang in the choir for many years and kept losing those little pieces of paper that marked the
pages in his hymnal. Logic would suggest he would have thought about it at an earlier date.
After all, he worked at 3M for many years, and adhesion is one of its core competencies. Some
series of events must have triggered the idea. We just don’t understand the process. If we
did, we would have already resolved many of today’s technological limitations.
So, innovation includes invention, and invention begins with a new idea — something new. It’s
characterized by creating something which did not previously exist. It may refer to a product,
process, service, or some combination of concepts not previously revealed. Inventions span
the continuum from very simple to very complex. However, not all inventions are commercial-
ized. A patent issued for something new may or may not be of value. It may or may not be
commercialized.
Xerox’s Palo Alto Laboratory provides an excellent example of invention without any commer-
cialization. This center of research invented, and the company ignored, the first personal com-
puter, the first graphics-oriented monitor, the first hand-held mouse, the first processing pro-
gram for non-expert use, the first local area network, and the first laser printer. Xerox did not
commercialize any of these inventions. Management invested in research without recognizing
the significance of the demonstrated results. These inventions generated new businesses and
in some cases industries, but not for Xerox. Others commercialized the inventions.
Creativity
Invention and innovation involve creativity. They require thinking about the possible, about what
could be, about doing things differently, about putting together different combinations of what
is already known, and then having the ability to put it all together. Invention and innovation
involve some level of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Creativity has little to do with educa-
tional credentials or knowledge. To a great extent, it depends on a mindset and some innate
personal characteristics — not just promoting change, but accepting it.
A fundamental paradox is associated with creativity. While engineers talk about the lack of cre-
ativity, we really only want so much of it — and in such a way that it really doesn’t disturb our
status quo. We also fail to do the necessary homework to adequately propose an idea that may
be outside the domain of the organization’s purview.
Employers want creativity, but are they willing to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of creative people
— those who continually search for new opportunities — who are sometimes a breed apart?
Are the creators willing to do the up-front work to convince doubters and naysayers? Are all
of us willing to promote creativity and live with its uncertainties? Creativity is not done by the
numbers. It requires thinking and doing and thinking and doing more, until the expected result
is achieved. It’s hard work.
Internal sources
The internal possibilities span all organizational functions and their people. Suggestions that
become realized innovations come from scientists, engineers, marketing and sales personnel,
people working in communications, and occasionally, from high-level executives. In short, any
person can be the source of an innovation or a trigger for another observant person. Certain
sources push people’s buttons, and their thinking mechanisms go into overdrive.
Observation
Other sources of innovation are what we read and what we observe. Most innovators have
breadth of knowledge and are good information synthesizers. Organizations have many people
who can analyze the most complex problems, but usually only from one perspective. A poten-
tial innovation could be analyzed from a technological, marketing, business, or environmental
perspective by the most competent in their fields. But, innovation requires the synthesis of this
information to reach a conclusion. Managing the tradeoffs could look like a gut reaction, but
because of their breadth of interest, innovators have knowledge that goes beyond the formal
analysis.
Size dependency
Innovation sources also depend on organization size. In start-up organizations, the owners or
principal members will most likely be the sources. Their ideas were probably what developed
the start-up organizations.
Multi-product organizations, with division-type organizational structures, will most likely depend
on knowledge of their own sources. But they could miss new opportunities, if they don’t go
outside the bounds of their known technologies and markets. Stick to your knitting is often
touted as a business strategy. However, there comes a time when your knitting no longer has
customer acceptance.
In an essentially single product company, or where products are built on a common platform,
the innovation may be more restrictive. While innovation sources are unlimited, innovation is a
multistage process that focuses attention on the problem finder — the person who visualizes
combinations that can be integrated into a marketable new concept.
Activities include:
• Business • Functional Integration
• Products • Effectiveness and efficiency
• Processes • Support staff
• Information systems • External
Bibliography
1
Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1973, pp. 782-803.
2
Andrew H. Van de Ven, “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,” Management Science, May 1986, Vol. 32, No. 5.
3
Frederick Betz, Managing Technology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1987, p. 6.
4
Unknown source.
5
G. A. Stevens and J. Burley, “3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success,” Research Technology Management, May - June 1997,
Volume 40, No. 3, pp. 16 - 27.
6
E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fusfeld, “Generating Technological Innovation,” Sloan Management Review, 1981, Vol. 22, No. 3.
7
J. B. Quinn, “Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1985, pp.73-84.
8
A. B. Shani and C. F. Sexton, “Myths and Misconceptions about the Dynamics of Innovation,” National Productivity Review, Winter
1990/91, pp. 75-84.
Gus Gaynor was the first and former Editor-in-Chief for IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer print
magazine.
W e really don’t know much about product and process innovation — how it begins, what
prompts it, and who originates it. We do know that a specific environment is essential to
promote it. All organizations need it, and it generally comes from engineers and their support
staffs.
An innovation is not an idea. It requires invention plus implementation. The invention, usually a
combination of known principles and technologies combined in a new and often unique archi-
tecture, meets some specific needs or wants.
Innovations come in all sizes and shapes and embrace all the engineering disciplines. It is dif-
ficult to find an innovation that is limited to a single discipline or technology. Some people may
be idea generators but it takes implementation skills to bring those ideas to the marketplace.
We do know from the history of innovative organizations that the innovation process requires a
commitment from management and from its engineers:
From management
• Understanding of the innovation process
• Tolerance for exploration and controlled failure
• Freedom to act without encumbering policies and procedures
• A reward system with incentives based on results
• Commitment to provide adequate resources
• The ability to listen
• A sponsor willing to take risks
From engineers
• Technical and nontechnical competence
• Strong work ethic with mental and operational discipline
• Problem-finding and -solving competence
• Self-motivated behavior
• Maturity to ignore organizational indifference or resistance
• Passion to pursue a concept to a conclusion
• Developed powers of observation and synthesis
By Tom Briscoe
YawnMower — Cuts through material others find boring and bags the essence of new
ideas.
NeuroHoover — Sucks up pieces of information, knowledge, and facts, then filters and
stores them neatly in your brain.
RiskDrive — Spurs you to be creative, even if the status quo would be safer.
DomiNotator — Tumbles out next steps onto paper, based on the research and work
for others.
GroupCeiver — Tunes your colleagues into the same wavelength by synchronizing your
strategic direction.
TeamSmitter — Distills and sends common goals and plans (use with a GroupCeiver).
WarmTenna — Picks up bits of genius and incubates them, until they can take on a life
of their own.
NilliScope — Helps you shoot at something no one else can see...and hit it.
Tom Briscoe, a project manager at Campbell Scientific, Inc., writes about practical management
issues for engineers. (tbriscoe@campbellsci.com)
The Participants:
John Allen, senior mechanical engineer, with Outokumpu American Brass, Buffalo,
New York. A graduate of the University of Toledo, Allen has been in the copper and
brass industry for 15 years, mainly on the floor as a maintenance engineer, and has
recently been getting into project work.
Kevin Diehl, electrical sales engineer, Kaman Industrial Technologies, Rochester,
New York. Diehl has worked in sales and distribution for the past 11 years — inside
sales, outside sales, and electrical sales. He and his associates look at ways to take
automation to the next level.
Dr. Colin Drury, professor of industrial engineering, State University of New York,
Buffalo, New York. Before joining the SUNY-Buffalo faculty, Dr. Drury was manager
of ergonomics at Pilkington Glass. He has been involved with human factors engi-
neering and ergonomics, much of it concerned with quality control.
Don Roland, vice president and regional manager, Kaman Industrial Technologies,
Tonawanda, New York. Starting in the warehouse, Roland has gone through all the
steps of the organization: inside sales; purchasing; outside sales; branch, district,
and regional management.
Today’s Engineer: (TE) The dictionary defines innovation as the act of introducing
something new. How would you define innovation?
Allen: It’s being open-minded. Something new is not necessarily something completely
new. It is taking technology from one area and applying it to something totally different. For
example, a ceramic bearing that is used in the aircraft industry is used on a welder head simply
because it’s nonconductive. That’s innovative. The one problem I have, a gray area, is the
division between what is innovation and what is technological advancement.
Drury: Innovation is doing something different, maybe not necessarily new, but it must be
useful. You can do something new and have it be a complete waste of time. You need some
focus in innovation. I see innovation in products and processes, and in how humans interface
with either the production equipment or the product.
Diehl: When I think of innovation, I think of someone looking at a problem or puzzle and
trying to decide the best way to attack it. It may be an opportunity to take a completely
different route to arrive at a solution.
Roland: I would agree with what John [Allen] was talking about here. It’s hard for me to
distinguish between innovation and creativity or technological advance. There are things that
are viewed today as innovative, yet they have been around for years. To Colin’s [Drury] point,
maybe it didn’t have a useful purpose at the time, or people were not ready for it.
TE: What role does project management play in creating the freedom and flexibility to
become innovative?
Allen: Project management has in recent years become a field of its own. In the old days,
you used to have just a project engineer that did everything. Project management is more of a
team concept. It has become a must.
Drury: I think engineers have embraced management in the sense that management has got
something to tell you about how to run a system with multiple people in it. To some extent we
can create procedures for this design process. That makes it easier to get rid of some of the
mechanics of it.
Roland: This team concept and using project management is the more effective way of doing
things. There are two things that you have to make sure of though: first, that the project man-
ager is truly empowered to garner the resources, and second, that the people are told to react
in a timely manner to what needs to be done.
Diehl: You can also look at the innovation that is introduced by having the right players working
on the team.
TE: What kinds of restrictions are found in a highly structured environment as opposed
to a free-thinking model?
Drury: Restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. They keep people focused. If you keep it
too restrictive, then you just don’t get innovation. You have to find that balance between the
two.
Allen: The people that are more of the free-thinkers are the higher risk-takers. They give you a
little more freedom to try out different things; whereas in a structured organization, everything
has to be approved throughout the hierarchy.
Roland: I guess I can see the same thing from a management perspective. I would want some
history of effectiveness. As I get a feeling of some success in what they’ve done, I might
loosen up on some of that.
Diehl: I agree. You need to have structure to identify the goal and give direction. However, you
can’t have it be too highly structured. You end up eliminating innovation.
TE: You mentioned the team concept. What are the pros and cons of the team approach?
Allen: You get a group of people in a room and someone may start off the conversation. Then
you will get feedback and someone else will jump in with some more thoughts. When you get
that critical mass going, you can do amazing things.
Roland: The style of the project manager is very important to the effectiveness of the group.
It’s a talent to know when to stand back and let people run with ideas and when to step in and
say we’re in left field here. I don’t think enough time is spent training people on how to handle
those group dynamics.
TE: How much of the new style of innovation depends on the use of interdisciplinary
teams?
Allen: I think it’s a must.
Roland: Even though you may not have formally defined it as a team, it exists. I’m still going to
go to other sources, in an informal team atmosphere. So, is anybody really operating outside of
a team?
Allen: Most of the experience that I’ve had on it has been project teams. The newest type of
person we include is an accountant. The perspective that an accountant brings is much differ-
ent from what anyone else can. I think it’s good to bring together all the different disciplines
that you can think of to work together on that project. It generates more ideas. The more
ideas generated, the better that team performs.
Diehl: Teams are a driven necessity. Everyone’s doing more with less. It also helps other
people in what they are trying to do.
Roland: I agree but I don’t think they do enough of it. Industry, itself, tends to do things in
silos. People are charged with budgets and interdepartmental constraints. Too often they look
at things that they need to solve within their own area without knowing the whole picture.
Drury: People are generally concerned with just making their own areas better.
TE: What are some of the key nontechnical attributes needed to be successful in this
environment?
Roland: It comes down to communication skills. Engineers must be salespeople too. An
engineer can have all the technical knowledge, but without being able to communicate the
ideas, it’s worth nothing.
Drury: To be fair, it has been changing. However, for example, students sometimes view
some classes as just another class with a presentation at the end. They don’t comprehend the
impact of what they’re learning.
Allen: I think some of the things start to cross into human resources. For example, how do
you deal with conflicts?
Diehl: How are we doing with having industry work with schools to give them that perspec-
tive?
Roland: I think that is one area where we’ve actually improved. It’s much better than it was
10 years ago.
Drury: This idea of teamwork and innovation has brought it all into focus. No longer are you
just sitting around in your little ‘Dilbert’ cubicle.
TE: In conclusion, what do you see happening in the area of innovative ideas, methods,
or processes in the near- and long-term future?
Roland: I think people are becoming more aware of ways and methods of working towards so-
lutions. They are starting to understand more about it. These are not new techniques: project
management, team-building, and communication. I just think there is a better appreciation. It’s
also a matter of harnessing what’s out there.
Diehl: You really try to look at where we got many of the ideas we already have. I see the use
of the Internet for many applications, including machine and plant monitoring. There are some
places where it is being used now. There are some plants that are bringing it down to a level
where they can utilize it without high capital expenditure.
Drury: My worry about this is that engineering innovation is something that we do in our jobs,
but have we had any real new social structures? Have we had any real economic innovations?
We live in this world driven by economics and politics. We read about wars and economic
meltdowns and such. Can we do anything about that? There have been some innovations, but
I’m not sure it was by product teams looking for the good of the world.
Allen: I do have some concern. We have now gotten ourselves, because of innovation and
technological advancements, almost to the point of instant gratification. We want it now. We
expect it now. We are getting it now. I see some management philosophies taking this way
beyond where it should have gone.
Some of those philosophies say fail fast, fix it, race on. As an engineer, you should have your
head in a wastebasket, throwing up over that philosophy.
Roland: It’s fire, ready, aim.
Allen: Yes. We have to think things through more thoroughly. We’re supposed to have our
minds boggled every day. Move fast, but do it cautiously. Do it wisely.
By James M. Vinoski
T echnical people generally think they’re familiar with the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome.
They also generally believe that they and their organizations are free of its pernicious effects
on their efforts at innovation.
They’re also generally wrong. NIH is probably the single most prevalent barrier to innovation
in the engineering world, because it is present to some extent in every individual and organiza-
tion. Unfortunately, because most technical professionals don’t completely understand what
constitutes NIH, it usually goes both unrecognized and uncorrected.
To understand NIH, it’s first important to understand its origin and economic implications —
how it affects our learning and our money-making. Imagine if humans had no way of accu-
mulating or archiving knowledge. Inventive individuals might make advances in technology,
but without a means of encapsulating that knowledge — such as speaking, writing, or draw-
ing — inventions would benefit only the inventors, and would die with them. We would live,
economically at least, like the animals.
NIH means ignoring the archives. Ignoring, to some degree, the benefits that the inventions
and knowledge of others have to offer. It is this concept of degree that throws most engineers
off. We tend to think of NIH in only its most extreme form, wherein an individual or organiza-
tion completely rejects others’ developments. With today’s ever-growing pressure to innovate
in the face of increasingly limited resources (both people and money), this extreme is under-
standably rare.
But NIH also encompasses more limited rejections of, or restrictions on, the use of outside
innovations. This much more widespread hesitance to employ the knowledge of others can be
devastating to innovation efforts. Kevin Barrett, innovation director for Protein Technologies In-
ternational in Memphis, says, “If you’re going to do anything of significance these days, you’re
going to have to find the shoulders of some giants to stand on.”
Software as Capital
NIH can be particularly prevalent in industries where the capital structure simply hasn’t evolved.
Software engineering is an excellent example. Since it remains such a new field, and the mar-
ket is complicated by the fact that its creations are not tangible in the way manufactured goods
are, its capital structure is undeveloped.
Dr. Howard Baetjer, Jr., adjunct professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia, addressed this phenomenon in his recent book, Software as Capital: An Economic Per-
Jim Vinoski is the systems improvement engineer for Yoplait-Colombo (a division of General
Mills) in Reed City, Michigan. (vinoski@michweb.net)
S o you’ve tried imagining the audience in their underwear during your presentation. All that
did was make you sick, and it didn’t help your delivery.
Perhaps a better approach might be to engage your audience in a conversation, says Tony Jeary
in “Establishing the Proper Tone Ensures Speaking Success” (Presentations, November 1998).
Tone is mostly about how an audience perceives you, which is a key to success or failure as a
presenter, notes Jeary.
Most business presentations are given as lectures, which makes most people dread attending
presentations almost as much as delivering them. On the other hand, nearly everyone enjoys a
conversation. To succeed, establish a conversational tone, and do it in the first few minutes of
your talk. Jeary offers some tips:
• Talk with, not at, your audience. Use conversational language and avoid large words.
• Involve the audience. Ask questions, and listen to the answers.
• Don’t stand behind a podium; mingle with the audience.
• Use the names of participants, and encourage them to use yours.
• Smile and use humor. Use personal anecdotes and stories.
Try this, and you can imagine receiving a hearty round of applause or a standing ovation — with
your audience fully clothed, of course.
Innovation Is a Weed
If you were to count on one hand the individuals most influential in the digital revolution, you’d
better include Bob Metcalfe. The inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3Com holds court with
his insights on innovation in “Invention is a Flower, Innovation is a Weed” (MIT Technology Re-
view, November/December 1999). Metcalfe offers several lessons he learned on the process
of innovation, among them:
Selling matters. While inventing is romantic, innovation, the process of making a viable
business, is sometimes dirty work. It takes persistent selling to get people to buy into your
ideas.
Most corporate management initiatives fail because they lack integrity and an
underlying respect for people.
Don’t listen to your customers. Rather, choose which customers to listen to. Develop
products they will need by the time you can deliver them, not necessarily what they want
right now.
Be an entrepreneur, not a visionary. Both have visions, but the entrepreneur has plans to
achieve those visions.
Mike Aucoin is vice president of Emprend Inc. in College Station, TX. (m.aucoin@ieee.org)
D o technological innovations really make people happier? It not, what is the broader purpose
of an engineer’s work? For those who develop new medical technologies, the improve-
ment of the quantity of life seems a reasonable broader purpose. But medical technologies
represent a small fraction of manufactured goods. What about those who develop batteries
that live longer? Or faster pick-and-place machines? Or low-vibration motors? Does innovation
really improve not just the quantity, but also the quality of our lives?
Today, technological innovation seems like a good thing. But 25 years ago, a great debate was
raging as to the benefit, and even necessity, of technological innovation. The counterculture
was at its peak, American auto production was at its all-time low, and the personal computer
hadn’t been invented.
Two of the most profound thinkers on this problem were Stanford Economist Tibor Scitovsky
and Structural Engineer Samuel Florman. Both Florman and Scitovsky studied the interplay
between technology and human emotions, and both published their most influential works in
1976. But there, the similarities ended. Scitovsky was generally anti-technology; Florman, pro-
technology. Scitovsky was an academic; Florman, a practitioner. Scitovsky’s arguments relied
on theory and statistics; Florman’s, on literature and history.
Doug Lamm is a product manager in 3M Corp.’s Bonding Systems Division and is responsible
for the commercialization of a number of major new products. He first discovered the work
of Scitovsky and Florman while researching his thesis as a graduate student at the MIT Sloan
School of Management.
Ifirst met Jeff (not his real name) at a bookstore in central New Jersey. Jeff was an IEEE
member and an engineer, but he didn’t seem to have a very high opinion of himself. “I just
do my job,” he told me. “I’m not one of those R&D guys.”
This surprised me. I asked him, “Don’t you think you’ll invent something some day?” “Nah,”
he replied. “I don’t think I have it in me to do something really innovative.”
I felt bad for Jeff, because of those two words he used: “really innovative.” Without even
realizing it, Jeff was placing so much pressure on himself and his creativity that he wasn’t
even willing to try.
The truth is, ideas come in all shapes and sizes, and anyone can come up an innovative idea.
But unfortunately, not everyone puts themselves in an intellectual place where they are ready
to take advantage of their own creativity to do something innovative.
So... how do you come up with something innovative? Sometimes all it takes is putting
yourself in the right frame of mind. Here are some strategies and approaches you can take
to help unleash your own inner innovator.
John R. Platt is a freelance writer and marketing consultant. He can be found online at
www.john-platt.com. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
by Jim Jindrick
S ay “innovation,” and you might think of such breakthroughs as robotic rovers on Mars,
cloned farm animals or satellite radio broadcasting. While these modern-day advances are
certainly remarkable, more modest innovations get introduced every day. Whether simple or
complex, several rules of thumb apply to all innovations.
Jim Jindrick is managing director of Wencil Research, LLC, a technology venture planning and
development company based in Tucson, Arizona.
by George F. McClure
In the new globalized economy, U.S. engineers will be competing with counterparts in other
countries where the salaries may be one-sixth of comparable U.S. salaries. Clearly, the work
will move to places where it can be performed adequately at the lowest cost.
Two factors work in favor of the U.S. engineer: productivity and innovation. The information
technology (IT) revolution has raised productivity well above early 1990s levels. As the Wall
Street Journal has noted, “The productivity-growth factor is the ultimate determinant of the
standard of living. Over time, the more a worker can produce in an hour, the more his inflation-
adjusted salary will rise. Productivity grew at just 1.5 percent a year from 1973 to 1995, then
sped up to 2.6 percent between 1996 and 2000, an acceleration many observers attributed to
the spread of information technology. It then accelerated even further to 4 percent from 2001
to 2004 (http://online.wsj.com).”
A 2001 study found that in the non-farm business sector — the part of the economy on which
productivity studies typically focus — output per labor hour rose between 1995 and 2000 at
2.5 percent per year. This productivity increase was more than double the pace seen in the
preceding quarter century since 1970.
Beginning in 1992, the American economy began an extraordinary investment boom. From
1992 to 2000, real business fixed investment grew at 11 percent per year, with more than
half of the additional investment going into computers and related equipment. And as the IT
investment boom took hold, productivity growth and growth in real GDP accelerated as well.
The most powerful reason to believe that this acceleration of aggregate productivity growth is
permanent, rather than a flash in the pan, comes from the underlying growth accounting of the
impact of the IT revolution.
In 2001, information technology capital was growing at 20 percent per year and accounted for
7.0 percent of income earned.
Multiplying these two sets of numbers together, we find that the increase in the economy’s
information technology capital stock is directly responsible for 1.4 percent per year of economic
growth (www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/g26.html).
Currently, U.S. workers’ productivity is sufficiently higher than their overseas counterparts’, and
output is comparable per labor dollar — even when the lower offshore salaries are considered.
But as the offshoring trend goes forward, multinational corporations will find it in their best
interest to equip their engineers in India, China and elsewhere with the same productivity tools
enjoyed by U.S. workers.
The other factor is innovation — new combinations of capital and labor that improve quality
and reduce cost. Those who argue that the United States’ position in the forefront of high-
technology innovators is secure are counting on innovation to maintain that security. The
development of the transistor at Bell Labs is often cited as an example of innovative capability.
This invention led to integrated circuits, then to large-scale integration, and eventually to the
Pentium 4, a chip with 125 million transistors on it (http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q1/
p4-prescott/index.x?pg=1). Intel began chip fabrication operations in the United States, but
today operates 15 manufacturing sites, only eight in the United States. IBM operates eight
R&D centers, three in the United States.
by Donald Christiansen
W e seem to be living in an era where the past is denigrated. Neighbors are embarrassed
if their home, or its décor, is “outdated.” We must have the latest version of an ISP
program or be considered technically disadvantaged. “My iPod can do more than yours” is an
acceptable boast.
Engineers, of course, are agents of change, and so we lay the foundations for disenchantment
with the old, while helping popularize the new.
But our laudable successes bring with them a certain disaffection. The “tyranny of choice” is
one result. Walking through the aisles of cell, answer, and remote-access telephones in Best
Buy is like navigating the breakfast food aisle of a supermarket. What to choose? It is time
consuming and enervating to the uninitiated. If Ma Bell and W. K. Kellogg were still in charge,
selections could be quickly made: “I’ll take the black phone and a box of corn flakes.” We
could go on to more interesting things.
When the choices for the music enthusiast were but three — 78, 45, or 33 1/3 — life was
downright idyllic. A three-speed record player silenced all concerns about compatibility. Now
our DVD recorder warns us: “Do not play back the following discs: VCD, SVCD, SACD, PD,
CDV, DVD-ROM, DVD-RAM, DVD+R/RW, DVD, or audio.”
For a while, some products were produced with the idea that they would not quickly become
obsolete. They would be compatible with later versions and easily updated. During its first
decade (and beyond) of instant cameras, Polaroid designed all functional improvements so
that they could be easily adapted to its first camera.
Do we, as individual engineers, hold any responsibility for assuring the compatibility of
operation between generations of products? Perhaps that rests only with industry associations,
in which we may participate, or with regulatory agencies, to whom we may provide advice.
Standards-setting can be contentious, if ultimately advantageous to all players. In a lengthy
process involving both industry competitors and the FCC, a compatible U.S. color television
standard was hammered out, forestalling competing, incompatible systems coming on the
market. In contrast, the PAL system was introduced in Germany and SECAM in France, neither
compatible with the U.S. system, or one another.
Industry standards can help avoid the expenditure of time, effort and capital in developing
products that are incompatible with that of a more successful competitor. Undue delay in
defining standards may result in lots of nonstandard products, all claimed by their makers to
do the same thing, only better. Many will not survive, as customers tilt toward a winner. The
losers’ users may find themselves saddled with quality and service problems, and, ultimately,
more e-waste.
Donald Christensen is the former editor and publisher of IEEE Spectrum and an independent
publishing consultant. He can be reached at donchristiansen@ieee.org.
by Terry Costlow
A s the global economy presents new challenges to America’s high-tech leadership, govern-
mental policy-makers will play an important role in setting the stage for success or failure.
A recently released report, the National Innovation Initiative (NII), is tackling these issues in
hopes of helping set an agenda that will help the country maintain its leadership position.
The NII goes beyond stating the obvious that countries with innovative companies and
entrepreneurs will win out, focusing instead on creating an agenda for maintaining America’s
leadership position. That agenda will require cooperation from legislators, educators and
engineers throughout American industry. Implementing a focused strategy is critical for the
United States to remain competitive as the Internet and other technologies heighten the
already intense global competition.
“There are a lot of challenges facing this country, particularly competition from low-cost,
high-innovation nations,” said Chad Evans, vice president of the Council on Competitiveness.
The Council was formed in 1986 “to set an action agenda that drives economic growth and
raises the standard of living for all Americans.” Toward that end, it regularly benchmarks
America’s economic competitive status compared to other countries while also supporting
investment in knowledge creation and innovation. One of the group’s goals is to explain
technical and business issues to legislators who help set the national agenda.
“We need to make sure policy-makers understand the value of engineering. We don’t just
need MBAs, we need engineers to make sure we capture the global benefits as nano-
technology diffuses globally,” Evans said.
The Council is now starting to build its consensus by holding seminars to broaden awareness,
working closely with the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Academy of
Sciences and IEEE-USA, among others.
The NII proposes a three-pronged agenda. The “talent” segment calls for a national innovation
education strategy and empowerment of American workers so they can succeed in the global
economy.
The second agenda item calls for investment in advanced research and risk-taking companies,
while also focusing on energizing the entrepreneurial economy. And the third goal focuses on
infrastructure items that must be addressed, including strengthening America’s manufacturing
capabilities while building a national consensus for innovation growth strategies.
The NII addresses many of the issues facing the electronics industry and electronic engineers.
“Our goals align with the NII. We want to empower workers to succeed with things like
portable health care benefits and expanded assistance to key industries,” said Russell Lefevre,
vice president of Technology Policy Activities at IEEE-USA.
Government assistance to key areas such as electronics and nanotechnology is one of the key
points of the voluminous report. These fields need plenty of long-term research, something
that’s been neglected as corporations focus on product-oriented R&D necessary in hotly
competitive markets. Government funding is available, but the independent-minded electron-
ics industry hasn’t fought for it like some other fields.
Terry Costlow has been writing about engineering issues for more than 20 years. He can be
reached at todaysengineer@ieee.org.
By Chris Mcmanes
T echnological breakthroughs like the Internet, satellite communications and medical imaging
devices were developed in the United States. Congress and the Bush Administration want
to make sure the next major high-tech advance originates here, too, so our nation can remain
the world’s technology leader.
The Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act, or PACE Act, introduced on Capitol Hill in late
January, will help accomplish this goal. The legislation is based on 20 recommendations from
the October 2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing Ameri-
ca for a Brighter Economic Future.
IEEE Fellow and former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, working under the aegis of
the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, chaired the
panel that produced the report
“The thrust of our report can be summed up in one word — ‘jobs,’” Augustine said at the
news conference announcing the legislation. “… We must either create jobs that innovate or
we’ll see them evaporate.”
Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced the PACE Act, which is actually three bills (S. 2197,
S. 2198 and S. 2199). Expected to cost about $9.5 billion in its first year, the legislation
(PACE-Energy, PACE-Education and PACE-Finance) has broad bipartisan support.
“We’re now playing in a tougher league; China and India are competing for our jobs,” Alexan-
der said. “The best way to keep those jobs in America is to maintain our brainpower edge in
science and technology.”
The American Competitiveness Initiative that President George W. Bush announced during his
recent State of the Union address features similar recommendations to the PACE Act. Both
the initiative and the legislation are designed to improve the United States’ ability to compete
in the global economy.
“With more research in both the public and private sectors,” President Bush said, “we will
improve our quality of life and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and
innovation for decades to come.”
Russ Lefevre, IEEE-USA’s vice president for technology policy activities, and IEEE-USA govern-
ment relations staff continue to work with Senate staff to help identify positive aspects of the
PACE Act, and to recommend sections that should be changed. IEEE-USA is also working to
build grassroots support and convince other lawmakers to support the legislation. Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) joined the four co-sponsors at the news conference.
When asked the benefit the legislation would have for her home state, Hutchison said, “If we
can get more engineers, we can keep jobs in Texas and in America.”
IEEE-USA President Ralph W. Wyndrum Jr. and IEEE-USA President-Elect John Meredith are
pleased with the PACE Act. It dovetails with their strategic focus on continuing education of
our high-tech workforce; K-12 education for the next generation of scientists and engineers;
and promoting innovation through public policy. U.S. IEEE members should benefit from this
strategy.
The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation
46
Wyndrum and Meredith are also pleased that the legislation will foster innovation in the United
States at places like NASA, the Departments of Defense and Energy, government-funded
national laboratories and the National Science Foundation (NSF), among others.
“Innovation has been the hallmark of American engineering,” Wyndrum said. “We need to
retain that and not let it slip overseas.”
Energy
Among the bill’s many proposals, PACE-Energy calls for establishing a DARPA-like agency
within the Energy Department to develop transformational energy technologies that bridge
the gap between scientific discovery and new energy innovations. The department’s Office of
Science would receive double authorized funding for basic research in the physical sciences.
“The National Academies believes that research into energy is important for the United States
to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources,” Lefevre said. “Doubling the Office of
Science’s funding is one way to make this happen. More R&D is going to result in more jobs.”
PACE-Energy also proposes to increase basic research spending by up to 10 percent for
seven years at several federal agencies. Another spur to economic growth is a doubling (20 to
40 percent) of the Research & Development (R&D) tax credit, and making it permanent. These
changes will give U.S. companies incentive to conduct ground-breaking research here rather
than set up shop overseas. In November 2005, IEEE-USA’s Board of Directors approved a
position calling for a permanent R&D tax credit.
“Making it permanent would allow businesses to plan ahead, instead of being concerned about
R&D spending on a year-to-year basis,” said Cliff Lau, chair of IEEE-USA’s Research & Develop-
ment Policy Committee. “We think this would be a tremendous help to research laboratories
and businesses in their long-range planning.”
The word innovation is bandied about frequently without much description of exactly what
it is. IEEE-USA defines innovation as the conversion of ideas and inventions into useful and
affordable products, services and processes. Dictionary.com defines it as “the act of introduc-
ing something new,” … “a creation resulting from study and experimentation.”
“The whole foundation of American culture and economy is based on the concept of discovery
and innovation,” Mikulski said. “When you look at what has made America a superpower, it’s
our innovation and our technology. We have to look at where the new ideas are going to come
from that are going to generate the new products for the 21st century. The PACE Act will help
set the framework and create the building blocks that we need for a smarter America.”
Innovation leads to desirable, high-paying jobs in critically important areas such as health care
and national security, and engineers are our country’s principal innovators. Domenici pointed
out that the United States, with just five percent of the world’s population, accounts for 30 per-
cent of the world’s wealth. Taxpayer dollars invested in innovative research today contribute to
the paychecks and tax base of tomorrow.
“More math and science means better jobs,” said Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy
& Natural Resources Committee. “If we’re not careful, the new flat world will flatten our
wallets.”
Wyndrum hopes the legislation’s R&D focus is more on research, rather than such things as
commercial product development.
Education
PACE-Education has many provisions to improve math and science education in U.S. schools.
Merit-based scholarships of up to $20,000 per year for up to four years would be awarded to
students majoring in mathematics, science or engineering who concurrently pursue teacher
certification and agree to teach math or science in a public school for at least four years. This
arrangement would reduce the number of students being taught these subjects by teachers
who did not major in them. Additionally, up to 25,000 students per year would receive four-year
competitive scholarships to pursue a bachelor’s degree in science, engineering or math.
“These are exactly the sort of things that will improve the flow of qualified candidates into
these critical fields,” Wyndrum said. “IEEE-USA enthusiastically endorses this.”
Wyndrum said his home state, New Jersey, does not allow teachers to teach a subject they
have not been prepared to instruct.
“[The PACE Act] should enhance the flow of qualified instructors in advanced high school math-
ematics, physics and chemistry, which are in great shortage right now,” he said. “New Jersey
has a significant shortage of high school instructors that can teach physics and chemistry.”
So how does the state get around this shortage?
“They don’t offer the [physics and chemistry] courses,” Wyndrum said, “and that’s really sad.”
Finance
PACE-Finance will promote continuing education by providing an annual tax credit of up to
$500,000 to employers who pay for qualified courses to improve or maintain their employees’
knowledge in science and engineering. IEEE-USA is championing continuing education for
U.S. IEEE members with the IEEE Educational Activities Board.
Despite the PACE Act having 60 Senate cosponsors by 1 February — many on key committees
— passage is far from certain. If the Senate does pass all or part of the PACE initiative, it is
hoped that the House will follow suit. A variety of less comprehensive bills dealing with these
issues have been introduced in both chambers of Congress, with hearings scheduled shortly.
Bingaman, ranking member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, believes
strongly in the bill’s intent.
“The PACE Act will sustain our vibrant science and technology sector, and with it our well-
being, health, environment and security,” he said. “It will invest in R&D, encourage education,
and nurture a business environment that transforms new knowledge into new high-wage jobs.
The passage of this farsighted public investment initiative will ensure that the United States
is stronger, smarter, and leads the world in scientific and technological innovation well into the
future.”
A disconnect seems to exists between the arcane and esoteric realm of basic research
conducted in secretive labs by cloistered engineers and scientists and the familiar and
ubiquitous technologies we take for granted today. But the fact is that many of the technolo-
gies that we utilize daily were born in those very same labs, funded by government programs
and private corporations. For example, it’s widely known that the forerunner to the Internet the
ARPANET was started by graduate students responding to an RFP from ARPA (later DARPA)
for a packet-switching network. The benefits of their advances are obvious and relatively
celebrated, but countless others are less heralded.
I was recently asked to help compile a list of examples of how research and development
(R&D) specifically basic R&D benefits the United States. That list will be used by IEEE-USA’s
volunteers and government relations staff to educate members of Congress and colleagues
about the vital role R&D plays in the economy, national security and social and economic
prosperity. A tangentially related conversation with a reporter about what engineers could do
to draw more attention to their accomplishments prompted me to record the following list of
some of the significant R&D efforts that have filtered into our daily lives. Of course, it’s just
the tip of the iceberg...
• W
illiam S. Boyle and George E. Smith, the inventors of charge-coupled devices (CCDs),
shared the $500,000 Charles Stark Draper Prize, presented by the National Academy of
Engineering at a black-tie gala on 21 Feb. CCDs are imaging sensors that convert light
into electrical impulses, scanned to send digital data. They are used in telescopes and
imaging satellites, as well as in such consumer products as digital cameras. Boyle
and Smith invented CCDs in 1969 at Bell Labs. Usable across the spectrum, CCDs can
image optical, X-ray, ultraviolet and infrared emissions.
• R
esearch into CCDs led to the technology that produced CCD sensors used in digital
cameras. Today, consumers can can buy “single-use” digital cameras at prices that
are almost disposable except that the stores actually keep them when you get your film
developed.
• T
he TV remote control began as the brainchild of two inventors, both at Zenith Electron-
ics Corp. in Chicago. Eugene Polley devised the Flashmatic, a flashlight-like device that
shined light on a matrix of sensors on the front of the set to change channels or turn
the set and sound on and off. Thirty-thousand units were sold. Sunlight proved to be
a problem with this approach. Robert Adler invented the ultrasonic Space Command
remote, with some 9 million sold between 1956 and 1982, when the infrared remote
was introduced. Today, about 500 million infrared remotes are in use.
• A
classic example from the early days of the space program is Pyroceram the material
developed to make missile nose cones that would withstand extreme heat. It became
a commercial success as Corningware.
• H
igh-density electronic packaging was developed first for military and space applica-
tions, but its use filtered down into the PCs, Palm Pilots and Blackberries of today.
Multilayer printed circuit boards with plated-through holes for interconnections are
now widely used. Flexible printed wiring is used for irregularly shaped spaces, for
interconnections to other (“mother”) circuit boards, and is even found in the instrument
panels of automobiles.
The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation
49
• J ack Kilby, who pioneered the integrated circuit at Texas Instruments (TI), was
honored for his achievement by receiving the IEEE Medal of Honor and the Nobel Prize
in Physics. In the early days, the ICs were installed in sockets on circuit boards, but
later proved so reliable that they are now often soldered directly to the circuit boards.
TI brought out the early electronic calculator in both scientific (along with HP) and
consumer models. The full-featured ones initially cost $495.
• T
he late Robert H. Tanner, IEEE president in 1972, often remarked that if people
counted the number of electric motors in their homes they would realize how much
engineering contributed to their creature comfort. At the time, most clocks contained
a timing motor, but today many of the timing functions are digital.
• T
anner lamented that TV did not feature Marcus Welby, P.E., a show that would have
focused the public’s attention on engineers. Of course, TV itself was a product of basic
research, and later product development, funded by Sarnoff, Dumont, Farnsworth and
others. The IEEE History Center is a good resource for further details.
• T
he MASER led to the LASER which eventually resulted in the laser diode, used in
today’s laser pointers. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were first used in small numerical
displays, but today are used everywhere in automobile taillights, flashlights, even night
lights. Infrared diodes made the TV remote control units possible.
• T
he digital computer grew from the need for ballistic tables on trajectories for shells
fired by naval guns and army artillery. The University of Pennsylvania developed the
vacuum tube ENIAC computer in 1946. Grace Hopper, later a Navy admiral (and the
“mother” of COBOL), was initially a computer programmer. In the very early days, the
machines used mechanical relays to perform computations. Insects between the relay
contacts could cause problems, leading to the need to “debug” the machine a term that
persists today in software.
• T
he desktop PC today has computing power that exceeds the early mainframes and
indeed that in the Apollo modules, leading NASA to recommend new electronics with
basically the same propulsion system for the next Moon mission.
• R
etired Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has attributed our increased productivity,
and the related rise of the information technology profession, largely to the computer.
Without communications satellites and fiber optic transmission cables, globalization of
commerce (including services) would be impossible. The IEEE History Center provides
a 20-page history of the computer.
• T
he microwave oven is a good example of commercial application of basic research, in-
cluding a klystron or other microwave generator, a touchpad, liquid crystal display, digital
timer and power level controller, and an electric motor to rotate the turntable all for less
than $100 retail.
• C
omputers abound in today’s automobiles controlling the engine, the transmission,
emission control system, passenger entertainment system, security system, and even
the timing for door locks and interior lighting.
The Stealth Profession: How Do Engineers and R&D Benefit the Nation?
50 How the Government Refocused on Innovation
and Competitiveness
By Debra Schiff
Innovation and competitiveness aren’t just empty buzzwords in Washington these days —
they’ve garnered very real support from Congress and the White House, and have inspired a
number of promising legislative initiatives. If Congress can capitalize on building momentum
behind these efforts, new legislation designed to help the United States maintain its technologi-
cal leadership edge could be sent to the President during this session of Congress.
In the Senate, a sweeping package called Protect America’s Competitive Edge Act (PACE), and
the National Innovation Act await action. And in the House, Democrats have unveiled their
innovation agenda, with House Republicans expected to unveil their own shortly. In his State
of the Union Address on 31 January, President Bush outlined his American Competitiveness
Initiative, designed to spur U.S. innovation and better equip the nation to compete in the global
marketplace. With such broad support, it seems likely that some measure of legislation related
to innovation and competitiveness will survive the legislative process. But, in a time of partisan
wrangling over issues like Iraq, port deals and wiretaps, how did such a unifying issue come to
the fore?
Debra Schiff is a freelance writer who has written for EE Times, IEEE Spectrum and Electronic
Design. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
Next Steps
The handful of bills introduced in Congress that cover all or part of the Rising Above the Gath-
ering Storm and Innovate America reports will have to be reconciled before the voting begins.
“Then, the Washington system will do what it usually does, evaluate how sound a case we’ve
made, and the leaders will appropriate the funds and approve the projects, or they won’t,” says
Augustine, taking a wait-and-see approach.
Debra Schiff is a freelance writer who has written for EE Times, IEEE Spectrum and Electronic
Design. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
N ext to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are
doing the right thing.
So said industrialist John D. Rockefeller about the value of putting your name and good works
where others can see them especially those who can boost your image.
Self-promotion doesnt come easily to everyone. It may even seem incompatible with the
straight-arrow engineering profession. But engineers as professionals who change society for
the better are entitled to speak up about their entrepreneurship, their innovations, their awards
and new contracts, the impact of engineering on our everyday lives, and so much more. You
can employ a few subtle, inexpensive, time-tested methods to promote yourself, and spread
goodwill for the entire profession at the same time.
Two well-known channels of self-promotion are public relations (PR) and advertising. Both seek
to communicate your message to a predefined target audience. With advertising, you spend
money to say what you want, how, where and when you want to everything from a 10-second
radio spot to a billboard. Advertising is about generating sales.
Unlike paid advertising, however, public relations is a mutually beneficial relationship with the
mass media, which serves as your spokesperson for free. PR is about creating good vibes.
Public relations affords you more credibility and status because your words are reported by, and
get the tacit endorsement of, the media. The payoff is not in sales per se, but in heightened
awareness and a positive perception of a person, product, service, even a cause. As Marshall
McLuhan once said, the medium is the message. The information you supply to the media
becomes the news. And everyone wants news.
What might you send to the media? You can write a letter, article or news release and submit
it to a newspaper, t.v. or radio station, even a Web site. Your letter, release or call, however,
must have a news hook, i.e., some connection with a recent or unfolding event (local, national
or international). If your information sparks the editors interest, the media will report it as news
coverage. The idea youve hopefully planted in the readers mind is: this is someone of value.
Welcome to public relations.
Another example: In a former life, this writer was assistant director of PR for Hunter College in
New York City. On the morning that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont abruptly announced his
defection from the Republican Party to become an Independent, I called WCBS-880 news radio
eight minutes after Jeffords statement to say that Hunter College had an expert in Congres-
sional matters on its faculty; would they like to talk to him? Our expert was interviewed on the
air about 10 minutes later. The benefit to listeners: they learned much more about party defec-
tions. The message: Hunter College is a place where intellectual and academic excellence is
always on tap. We wanted those in Albany who funded our school to know this.
So: Good timing, an understanding of the needs of a given media outlet, and the deft use of
language are essential for using PR. Also essential is the need to be on the qui vive for oppor-
tunities to contact the media. But the value of third-party endorsement by the media is worth
the effort. Whats more, you can further capitalize on the coverage by saving and disseminating
the resulting news clips to further market your services.
By James L. Flanagan
This article has been reprinted with permission from The Bent of Tau Beta Phi (Fall 2006).
The extensive public discourse has so far had little telling effect, and minimal actionable
response from government leadership. But fortunately, in part through the prestige of the
National Research Council and its October 2005 committee report “Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,” the latent crisis is being more widely apprehended, and initial proposals are being put
forward to blunt the threat. Early steps include explicit recognition of the erosion of scientific
leadership in the President’s State of the Union message in January 2006, significant bipartisan
collaboration in the Senate at about the same time in one bill “Protect America’s Competitive
Industry-University Cooperation
Much of industry is not aware of the large pool of intellectual talent residing in research univer-
sities, and even when aware, how to tap into it. There are numerous obstacles and pitfalls, but
they can usually be negotiated. An inherent benefit to industry by participating in and support-
ing academic research is the leveraging of federal and state investment. This sharing takes the
sting out of research cost and risk. (Historically this participation has been very one-sided, with
federal sources supplying about 60 percent of academic research funds, and industry supply-
ing about 7 percent.) This cost-sharing is sometimes criticized as corporate welfare. I prefer to
Industry’s Side
The whole industrial enterprise is a major element that has been given short shrift here. It is
in this sphere that knowledge application is crafted. The process is generally guided by a close
apprehension of societal needs and desires, and technology is developed to match business
opportunities. Industry must see to the manufacturing and deployment of products and ser-
vices. Given existing trends, it seems unlikely that domestic industry will seek to compete in
large-scale labor-intensive manufacturing, where a skilled work force and routine engineering
expertise can be found in more cost-effective locations. Again, the attractive place to compete
is in unique high-value activities of knowledge creation, work force education, and in identifying
technology to match societal needs. While labor-intensive mass manufacturing is de-empha-
sized in this view, the creation of new technologies for manufacturing is not, nor is the engi-
neering management of contracted work. Implied throughout, too, is industry’s responsibility
for deployment, maintenance, and salvage, much of which is local. A predilection for this mode
may already be established, as we witness new products such as Razr, iPod, and xBox, and
new services based on search engines, voice-over-Internet, and broadband fiber to the home.
Offshore manufacturing poses some concerns in national defense. And, this matter reflects in
a different way the growing importance of partnerships — partnerships among nations, as well
as among multinational companies.
Innovation implies the application of new knowledge, which must come from some store.
A pervasive worry is that we are largely living on knowledge created over the past decade,
and that this condition can be sustained for while — perhaps another five years — before the
The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation
67
store is depleted, and the situation becomes critical. Performance then ceases to be competi-
tive. One possible marker of this trend is our output of technical articles, which has essentially
been flat since 1992, and has been overtaken and exceeded by that of Western Europe since
1996. An insidious aspect is that criticality might be far enough into the future so as not to
draw much attention. This may be yet one more point to socialize, and on which to seek public
and congressional understanding.
Because industry must have new knowledge to stay competitive — indeed to survive — the
hope is that basic research and innovation can be strengthened enough in the U.S. to con-
stantly stoke the knowledge store and maintain global leadership. Given the risk-averseness of
stockholders, and the necessity of stable, sustained support for long-term research to succeed,
it seems that government remains the key factor in nurturing leadership. Government can
encourage research investment among industry, but government investment is most certainly
central and necessary to academic research. This necessity is well apprehended in some gov-
ernments abroad, where basic, sustained, programmatic support is already being implemented
and handsomely financed.
Reprise
The thesis here is that knowledge creation is preeminent to leadership. Knowledge creation
derives from basic research. Over half of the U.S. basic research is performed in academia,
largely with government funding. This support has languished over recent years, as industry
has also pulled back from its investments. Leadership and technical capabilities are conse-
quently eroding. Educational efforts to attract young students into science and engineering
may be ineffectual, unless satisfying careers and stable contributory jobs can be demonstrated.
These typically are based upon exploitation of new knowledge. While it is believed that in-
dustry R&D will grow under mounting pressure of global competition, it seems absolutely key
that government substantially expand support of U.S. academic research. This can occur if the
various proposals mentioned earlier successfully coalesce and navigate the legislative process.
Constant public support and advocacy are critical to assure a positive outcome.
An abiding concern is that the societal contributions of research in physical science and engi-
neering have less public visibility, because they are more difficult to relate to daily lives of indi-
vidual citizens—despite the many technologies that affect people directly, such as MRI’s, CAT
scans, ultrasonic cardiography, laser surgery, biomaterials, electronic prostheses (pacemakers,
hearing aids, artificial larynges), and others.
A continuing question is how to enhance public awareness and gain congressional attention
for the basic physical science that helps protect our future? Survey data suggest that public
understanding of science arises primarily from television vehicles. This, in turn, suggests that
public broadcast might give special emphasis to the societal benefits of scientific innovation.
Additionally, congressional attention is clearly responsive to public opinion, and this, among
other means, can be offered in personal letters, calls, and visits. The coalitions, mentioned at
the outset, share related objectives and are working to keep science and engineering initia-
tives before government officials. But, it would seem that unifying and coordinating processes
should be urged to enhance their effectiveness and focus. Individuals in each technical sec-
tor can contribute influence. In whatever way efforts are consolidated, the resulting coalition
would find senior faculty of leading research universities and representatives of science-based
industry willing collaborators. In concert, a non-partisan strategy, and a plan of action, can
forcefully be laid before our leaders in Washington.
Dr. James Flanagan, Mississippi Alpha ’48, is retired vice president for research at Rutgers
University and emeritus board of governors professor in electrical and computer engineering.
He received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at Mississsippi State University
in 1948 and his M.S. and D.Sc. at MIT. Holder of 50 U.S. patents, he has received technical
recognition that includes the National Medal of Science (1996) and the IEEE medal of honor
(2005). A fellow of the IEEE, the Acoustical Society of America, and the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, he has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering and the
National Academy of Sciences. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
By George Mcclure
T here is general agreement that the secret to maintaining U.S. competitiveness is innovation.
Commodity manufacturing will move offshore but, the reasoning goes, if the United States
is first to market with new technology, it will maintain a leading position among its competi-
tors. The World Economic Forum publishes annually its Global Competitiveness Index, ranking
125 economies on nine pillars, one of which is innovation [www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/
gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm]. The United States was ranked number
one in 2005, but fell to number six in 2006, behind Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and
Singapore [www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/].
Professor Michael Porter, who has written extensively on competitiveness, says the secret to
staying at the forefront is gains in productivity. After making great strides during the late 1990s
(average productivity gain of 2.5 percent) and from 2002 to 2004 (gains at a 3 percent rate), our
non-farm productivity improvement has slipped during the past 30 months to an annual rate of
1.5 percent. The indicated rate for the first quarter 2007 is 1.7 percent, but that may be soft
since it assumes full hours worked (there are indications to the contrary).
Innovation is key
BusinessWeek recently tallied the top companies for innovation, based on a survey of some
2,500 executives [www.businessweek.com/go/innovativecompanies/]. The top five are Apple,
Google, Toyota Motor, General Electric and Microsoft. Many companies show R&D expendi-
tures in their financial reports, but for some large companies (such as GE, HP and Toyota) some
digging is required. Cisco Systems (25th in the 2007 rankings, up from 28 in 2006) spends over
$4 billion per year on R&D, but outsources basic research.
A new BusinessWeek service, the Company Insight Center on BusinessWeek.com, provided
most of the information contained in the table below [investing.businessweek.com/research/
company/overview/overview.asp].
The table shows the R&D invested as a percentage of sales for some representative technol-
ogy companies. The percentages alone can be misleading. Electronic Arts has experienced
declining sales of electronic games, while it steps up product development to recover.
Apple, number one for innovation in 2007, spent 5.93 percent of sales on R&D in 2004,
but because sales have risen by 2.5 times, and R&D rose by only 45 percent, its R&D fell
to 3.69 percent of sales in 2006. The major chipmakers invest heavily in R&D — mostly for
manufacturing technology. Intel has a policy of using university researchers for basic science;
it is developing a line of chips for health care and has announced a $2.5 billion fab facility in
China.
As with other conglomerates, IBM, with its emphasis on services as well as physical products
and software, may be misleading with its 6.75 percent of sales devoted to R&D. For 2006,
R&D breakouts are available for only two automakers: Honda and Daimler-Chrysler. Honda is
developing a diesel engine (in both 4- and 6- cylinder sizes) for its larger vehicles, and has a
light jet air taxi.
Siemens’ competitor in the European power equipment industry, ABB, does not report its R&D
expenses separately, but has encountered stormy weather financially. Siemens acquired the
assets of Westinghouse power generation some time back.
Two makers of flat panel displays, AU Optronics and LG.Philips, have been hit hard by the
falling prices of displays, but AU Optronics (in Taiwan) stayed in the black, while LG.Philips,
a joint venture between LG of Korea and Philips of the Netherlands, did not.
By Russ Lefevre
Russ Lefevre is a Life Fellow of the IEEE and 2007 IEEE-USA President-Elect. Comments may
be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
By Sharon Richardson
Innovation — the act or process of inventing or introducing something new; something
newly invented; or a new way of doing things.
Innovation is the hot buzzword these days. But, is it easy to innovate? Actually, it seems like
it — until your boss asks you to develop a new process for the way you do business; invent a
new product that no one has every heard of before; or create a new service that no other com-
pany has ever provided for its customers.
To help IEEE members learn to innovate, IEEE-USA is launching a new Innovation Institute
[www.innovation-institute.org] geared at training current and future business, academic and
government employees responsible for the innovation of new products and services. Former
IEEE-USA President Ralph Wyndrum, CEO and visionary behind the new Innovation Institute,
says this concept came about from survey results that the IEEE conducted on its U.S. mem-
bers. “The survey concluded that members were not satisfied with the benefits that they were
receiving for their dues. Also, members in mid-career believe that they are being ignored by
corporations who are not interested in helping them get the education they need to enhance
their careers. They felt that their employers don’t want them taking classes on company time,
nor do they want to pay for them to take classes after hours, or fund their membership in orga-
nizations like the IEEE,” Wyndrum noted.
Further, according to the survey, our U.S. IEEE members believe that K-12 students are not pre-
pared to enter engineering schools; and that companies are downplaying innovation and basic
research and development. Wyndrum said that overall, the survey results showed evidence
that U.S. IEEE members have major concerns about innovation and R&D. So, he stressed at
an IEEE-USA Board of Directors (BOD) meeting the need to “preserve and keep the innovation
process alive. We need an Institute.” IEEE-USA’s BOD unanimously agreed — and the IEEE-
USA Innovation Institute was born.
The Innovation Institute’s mission is to offer programs designed to advance the preparation
of leaders responsible for the innovation of new products and services, by sharing the experi-
ences of successful innovators in a coordinated program of interaction, mentoring and network-
ing. Further, the Innovation Institute aims to enhance the ability of technical professionals to
respond to opportunities to integrate new and existing technologies with potential for new,
customer-driven markets; develop the ability of technologically-oriented managers to refine
operations in research and development, or production environments; enhance invention and
innovation; provide opportunities for educators to both develop and share innovative approach-
es to achieving the goals of the Institute; and let members access the wealth of experience in
successful innovations available through other IEEE member innovators.
The plans are for the Innovation Institute to hold forums — one and a half day workshops to be
held regionally, collaborating with the IEEE’s U.S. Sections or Chapters. The innovation forums
will involve small groups of 50 to 100 participants. Institute faculty members — IEEE members
who have innovated successfully and who are willing to share their experiences — will play
key roles in the forums. “The forums will be a place for people who want to be innovative, and
Sharon Richardson is staff assistant for communications at IEEE-USA, and editorial assistant for
IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Digest. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.