The Science of Innovation: A Comprehensive Approach for Innovation Management 9783110343809, 9783110343793

Citation preview

Karsten Loehr The Science of Innovation De Gruyter Graduate

Also of interest Innovation Management Carolina Machado, J. Paulo Davim (Eds.), 2015 ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035872‐8, e-ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035875‐9, e‐ISBN (EPUB) 978‐3‐11‐038667‐7, Set‐ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035876‐6

Industrial Software Applications Rainer Geisler, 2015 ISBN 978‐3‐11‐037098‐0, e-ISBN 978-3-11-037099-7, e-ISBN (EPUB) 978‐3‐11‐039678‐2

Entrepreneurship for Engineers Helmut Kohlert, Dawud Fadai, Hans-Ulrich Sachs, 2013 ISBN 978‐3‐486‐73298‐6, e-ISBN 978-3-486-76972-2

Productivity and Organisations Management Carolina Machado, J. Paulo Davim (Eds.), 2017 ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035545‐1, e-ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035579‐6, e‐ISBN (EPUB) 978‐3‐11‐038661‐5, Set‐ISBN 978‐3‐11‐035580‐2

Karsten Loehr

The Science of Innovation

Author Prof. Dr.Karsten Loehr DHBW Heidenheim Marienstrasse 20 89518 Heidenheim Germany [email protected] www.Karsten-Loehr.de

ISBN 978-3-11-034379-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-034380-9 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-039658-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Thomas Northcut/DigitalVision/thinkstock Typesetting: Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

Preface “Innovation” has become a familiar dictum of everyday speech. Opening any magazine, you will find with considerable reliability a mention of something innovative on almost every page. Listening to any speech in business or politics, you will certainly also be told about innovations that should be taken into account. Obviously, this word has become a ubiquitous wild card for authors, journalists, politicians, or managers to explain their statements. However, the meaning of this term has become more and more extended and arbitrary, so that virtually everything seems to be innovative—but not really new, any more. Here, a scientific basis would be helpful in order to manage innovations in a thorough way. When told about an innovation, most people expect a new idea with a remarkable effect. And many of them may discern a new opportunity for business. In fact, an innovation is always both, that is, a technical as well as a commercial achievement by people and enterprises. Therefore, expertise from engineering and management has to be combined in a comprehensive way to innovate. A common error about innovations is related to the assumption that just one single good idea is needed in order to create something new. Many people dream about instantaneous success through one sole idea—followed by enduring personal wealth. However, experience tells us that considerable efforts and resources are required in order to achieve an innovation. A never-ending steady flow of consequent ideas is required to adapt and extend a very first notion before it can finally develop into an accomplished innovation. The creation of innovations needs a somewhat scientific culture of technical skills and of managerial persistence. In particular, an application of a scientific procedure is what makes the difference between a lucky coincidence and a professional achievement in innovation management. Another common misunderstanding of innovations concerns their relation to truth. Logically, something genuinely new must be initially outside of reality. Otherwise, that is, as an already existing part of reality, it could hardly be called really new. Therefore, innovations have to begin as merely expectations or requests, promises or pure fantasy. And consequently the management of innovations is primarily about imaginary things that seem to be theoretically reasonable but not yet scientifically grounded in facts. First of all, it seems reasonable to develop an invention as a solution for an occurring problem. Secondly, it also seems to be somehow reasonable to begin research again on the existing solutions for hidden problems in order to come up with other inventions. Thirdly, it even seems rather reasonable to do research on future problems as well as to anticipate potential solutions for them. And finally, even the assumption seems to be reasonable that there is a real human desire to recreate the world by the mere action of one’s own imagination. Obviously, to strive for innovations is an act of considerable complexity. Therefore, a scientific base becomes helpful to manage the related projects, the marketing, and the required inventions.

Where doth not something lack, on this wide earth? Here this, there that, for money here is dearth. Sure, you can’t pick it from the floor at pleasure, And yet can wisdom reach the deepest treasure. In mountain-vein, in walled foundation, Coined and uncoined has gold its habitation. And should you ask who’ll bring the same to light: The gifted man, with Mind’s and Nature’s might. from: Faust, Second Part of the Tragedy by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1832 [1]

Contents 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Innovation   1 Economy   5 Improvement   8 Disruption   13 Technology   17

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4

 22 Science  Elenctic   29 Entelechy   34 Epistemology   38 Categories   44

3 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4

 51 Management  Project   56 Culture   60 Phases   68 Success   74 Promoters   82 Marketing   91 Barriers   96 Diffusion   101 Design   109 Opening   113

4 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4

 119 Invention  Development   123 Quality   127 Checklist   130 Principles   133 Morphology   137 Research   139 Falsification   145 Uncertainty   147 Contradiction   152 Incompleteness   157 Prognosis   161 Prophecy   166 Anticipation   169 Trend   174 Forecast   178

VIII 

 Contents

4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4

Creativity   183 Inspiration   187 Improvisation   191 Interpretation   194 Intuition   197

System 

 203

Lessons learned  Literature  Index 

 212

 208

 206

1 Innovation These things, indeed, you have articulate, proclaim’d at market crosses, read in churches, to face the garment of rebellion with some fine colour that may please the eye of fickle changelings and poor discontents, which gape and rub the elbow at the news of hurlyburly innovation. from: Henry IV, Part 1, Act V, Scene 1, by William Shakespeare 1597

An innovation is a particular novelty. The prefix “in” indicates that a new item does not just somehow occur but is deliberately introduced “in-to” the world. Therefore intention, purpose, and effort, have gone hand in hand with innovations such as the printing press around 1450, the steam engine in 1712, the phonograph in 1877, or the synthesis of ammonia in 1909. Mere occurrences, like a meteor strike, an earthquake, the evolution of a new species, or even a coincidental acquaintance of people may be also new—and occasionally also the reason for long-lasting changes—but these can hardly be called innovative. An innovation is not just something new but something that is deliberately achieved. This aspect of human activity was primarily identified and described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1912 in his Theory of Economic Development [2]. In this book he analyzed the renewal of commodities and other economic goods through the action of creative entrepreneurs. In this sense an innovation signifies in particular the accomplishment of new economic value. An innovation is therefore basically related to the human particularity of attributing a certain value to each and every item in the world. For mankind there are not only specific things in the world but these things also represent a specific value. In fact, novelties also occur in natural ways; however, these are generally considered to be free of value and cost. Man’s appreciation alone gives them a certain value. Unlike natural developments, an innovation implies a conscious action with intended results. Historically, this idea-consciousness of mankind can be attached to the Axial Age as described by Karl Jaspers [3]. Between 800 and 200 BC early communities—cities and/or states—appeared on earth that were conscious of the worth of their activities. And those communities began to cultivate, reflect, and develop their common values and virtues. Surprisingly, those cultures appeared almost at the same time, although at different places and obviously independently of one another, with various masterminds, such as Laozi and Confucius in China, Buddha in India, Zoroaster in Persia, the prophets of Israel and the philosophers of Greece—just to name those whose ideas have been passed on to us today (see Figure 1.1).

2 

 1 Innovation

EUROPE Philosophy

Zor oas tria Jud nis aism m

ASIA

RI AF CA

Buddhism

Taoism Confucianism

Figure 1.1: Regions for innovative thinking in Eurasia during the Axial Age.

The apparent changes are also related to a new understanding of determination and novelties. Prior to the Jaspers’ Axial Age all novelties were explained as a result of destiny, fate, fortune or of the action of supernatural forces and gods. Later it became more and more accepted that the future can be established by the actions of man and human labor, intelligence, and decision. Today, on the other hand, we are experiencing increasing discomfort in accepting any change as given and we tend to explain all occurrences as the consequence of intentional actions. Thus, if we consider modern changes, we generally presume a certain kind of innovation. Thales from Miletus lived about 624–546 BC and is considered to be the first philosopher in Western culture. He is accredited with some talent for innovation, because when accused that philosophy does not earn a living, it is reported that he applied his reflections to an innovative investment: in winter he made long-term reservations for oil presses at a convenient low price. And when the harvesting came and turned out to be abundant, he sublet the presses at an arbitrary price and became wealthy. By this original example the basic character of an innovator becomes obvious, namely, the market development by creation of a unique selling proposition. Aristotle took this as proof of how easy it is to become wealthy through philosophy—if one just sets out to do so [4]. Accordingly, philosophers can be seen as an early version of innovation managers. However, until the Industrial Age, most innovations were related to items beyond the trade of goods and services. Initially, it was poets who were the creators of innovative ideas, because they were at liberty to describe the holy rules of nature in a novel way. The fulfillment of other human needs and wishes was exclusively considered to be in the power of spiritual beings, like fairies or demons. The peak in this restriction of innovations to artwork was reached in Medieval Ages, when each technical achievement had to face an inquiry about its relation to witchcraft and Satanism.

1 Innovation 

 3

It was not until the Renaissance—and the rediscovery of ancient philosophy in the 16th century—when technical improvements become socially acceptable, even though they were still outside of entrepreneurial interests. During this period Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) is considered to be outstanding for his innovative talents, for his technical findings as well as his artistic abilities. However, in his lifetime his inventions, such as a mechanical knight, a steam cannon, a mortar shell, a rotor helicopter, a parachute, and a reversible crank mechanism, were all in the interest of his sovereigns and were mostly conceived as military equipment. Apparently, it was almost unthinkable at that time to create new products with an economic benefit for the public. This kind of beneficial use of knowledge was first described about one hundred years later during the Age of Discovery. Sir Francis Bacon, the Lord Chancellor of England, published around 1620 his programmatic oeuvre Instauratio Magna, where he described the grand renovation of science [5]. In this work, he projected concepts for a systematic exploration of the earth and its principles for the purpose of creating public wealth. An economic interest through targeted application of scientific understanding had become thinkable. Nevertheless, another century elapsed before the first institution for research on applied sciences was established in London, in 1754: the RSA (Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce). Admittedly, this development

Stockholm 1825

Copenhagen 1829 1830 Moscow RSA London 1754

Delft 1864 Warsaw 1826 Hannover 1831 Aachen 1870 Dresden 1828 1873 Brussels Nuremberg 1823 Prague 1806 Paris 1829 Munich 1827 1825 1794 Stuttgart MIT Cambridge Karlsruhe Vienna 1815 Zurich 1854 Massachusetts 1861 Turin 1839 Porto 1836

Milan 1863 1864 Bucharest

Athens 1836 Figure 1.2: Diffusion of engineering institutions ● during the French period and ○ after the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

4 

 1 Innovation

was limited to England, with its progressive liberalism and emerging middle class, but its influence was not widespread and had only a minor impact on public life in general. But then, in the context of the French Revolution, the national relevance of technical progress was seen and led to the foundation of the Ecole Polytechnique—referred to as l’X—in 1794 for the education of Ingénieurs, which literally means a creatively skilled academic mind. The prefix “in” indicates again, that an engineer is concerned with the introduction of things “in-to” the world, whereas other scientists generally are attempting to discover and to understand the nature of given things. When Napoleon Bonaparte successfully employed these technical skills during his military campaigns, this new type of profession also became acknowledged by his enemies. Many European principalities instituted engineering schools as a result, first, to produce novel a means of warfare and later, also to build public buildings (see Figure 1.2). Subsequently, the entrepreneurs of the Industrial Revolution came to realize the advantages of engineering for economic success. The tremendous industrial development during the 19th century can be attributed to engineering innovations (see  Figure  1.3). This development was the result of technical and economic urea (Wöhler)

motor airplane (Wright)

electrolysis (Faraday)

cast concrete (Edison)

phenol & aniline (Runge)

rubber (Hofmann)

electric motor (Jacobi)

turbine (Kaplan)

revolver (Colt) telegraph (Morse)

vitamin (Funk/Teruchi) ammonia (Haber/Bosch)

photograph (Daguerre)

tubular transmitter (Meissner)

fertilizer (Liebig)

talkie (Vogt/Engel/Masolle)

narcosis (Morton)

carbonization (Warburg)

telephone (Reis)

insulin (Mackard/Benting/Best)

dye (Perlin)

hydrogenesis (Fischer/Tropsch) electronic television (Tihanyi)

dynamo (Siemens)

VHF transmission (Esau)

ferroconcrete (Monier)

penicillin (Fleming)

dynamite (Nobel)

magnetic tape recorder (Pfleumer)

four cycle engine (Otto)

acetylene plastic (Reppe) jet engine (von Ohain/Whittle)

indigo blue (Bayer) typograph (Mergenthaler)

ascorbic acid (Reichstein)

automobile (Benz)

nylon (Carothers)

cinema (Lumiere)

radio transmitter (Marconi) 1830

1840

1850

1860

1870

1880

1890

DDT (Müller) 1900

1910

1920

Figure 1.3: A survey of innovations (and innovators) during the Industrial Revolution.

1930

1.1 Economy 

 5

activities of both individuals and enterprises. This new function was then analyzed and described by Joseph Schumpeter. Lesson 1 Innovations are consciously introduced on purpose!

1.1 Economy Necessity relieves us from the embarrassment of choice. Reflections et Maxims #592 by Luc de Clapiers, Marquis de Vauvenargues 1746

Wealth and prosperity are respectable intentions for decent human living and only saints or other holy people can dedicate themselves to poverty or modesty. Literally, the word “economy” stands for housekeeping, indicating the permanent balance of existence: Each item spent has to be replaced with another item fulfilling a similar need. Otherwise, the household will gradually lose substance, then deplete itself, and finally fail. Thus, if commodities change ownership or if services are supplied, an equivalent compensation has to be rendered, or the exchange is not fair, the balance is a deficit, and the economy will crash. All scientific theories have basically to deal with static and dynamic conditions, that is, the status of a steady state and the change of that status to another. The status of an economy is determined by a balanced exchange of commodities, called arbitrage, because the agreed value is subject of the arbitrary estimations and needs of the traders, respectively. Apart from theft, imposture, damage, or loss, a reasonable exchange of arbitrage goods allows for the sustenance of a viable economy. The dynamics of an economy are characterized by investments—and here again the prefix “in” indicates the forced introduction of changes into the economy. Investments may generally have the goal of restoration of a running business in order to maintain further viability of the status. But Karl Marx already identified a surplus value by investments due to the introduction of machines or other means to rationalize the workflow [6]. Schumpeter recognized a further surplus, if novel commodities are introduced. To explain this, one may examine the actions on a so-called open market. Any arbitrary good obtains its value through a reasonable settlement of interests— generally known as the law of supply and demand. By comparative negotiation a mutual agreement has to be achieved, whereby the sale and purchase price match. In addition, a professional trader tries to obtain a certain margin for a compensation of his negotiation efforts and his market knowledge. However, if the trader can offer something uniquely new, he may demand another surcharge or bonus, because there is no competitor for this proposition. The created

6 

 1 Innovation

monopoly position allows a special recognition: the innovation reward. Therefore, the difference between an arbitrary and an innovative good is economically perceptible through a special reward and consequently by a special entrepreneurial rate of return. In fact, innovative creations are granted particular intellectual property rights. This seems to be economically justifiable in order to remunerate the investments for development and to recompense for the entrepreneurial risks taken. By means of patents an official monopoly position is granted for the economic exploitation of an invention for a limited period of time in the respective market area. Thus, patents certify the right to commercial capitalization of intellectual property with a unique selling proposition—but they do not guarantee economic success. A first approach to establishing the economic value of innovations is the degree of uniqueness. A rather marginal difference to the arbitrage goods already on the market is called incremental. A large difference of the achieved development is called radical. The pricing and the innovation reward are due to the performed difference, whereby the efforts and development investments can be hopefully regained—as well as a surplus for further investments in other promising innovations. Basically, the focus of an enterprise seems to be to pursue something extremely unique, that is, radical, for the market. For a high degree of uniqueness a respectively high rate of return can be expected for an extent of time. In fact, many prestigious innovations of the past are exemplary for their outstanding originality and exclusivity for a long period of time, for example, dynamite by Alfred Nobel in 1867; the semiconductor transistor by Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain from AT&T in 1947; or sildenafil citrate (Viagra) by Bell, Brown, and Terrett from Pfizer in 1996. Yet, at the same time there is proof of some extremely successful innovations completed in many small steps, that is, incremental innovation, for example the ever increasing implementation of cars, computers, and communication devices in our modern life. In the long run, a progression can be expected, because each improvement is based on the level accomplished previously (see Figure 1.4). The frequent update of the status is generally less risky due to an already established position on which to fall back. Therefore, the incremental increase of the curve progression can turn out significantly higher in later steps and become disproportionate compared to

reward

radical uniqueness arbitrage

reward

incremental progression

arbitrage effort

Figure 1.4: Innovation rewards by radical uniqueness or incremental progression.

effort

1.1 Economy 

 7

the average of single trials. It is mathematically proven that every sequence of rated ascents beats somewhere along the way of each linear incline. The second approach for the economy of innovations is the classification due to business operations. Primarily, a unique selling proposition applies to new products on the market, like a new material for construction, a new substance for medical treatment, a new component for machines, or any new mechanical or electrical device with novel functions. In fact, the novelty of a product frequently plays an important role in the perception of customers and their purchase decision. Exclusiveness and uniqueness in particular often seem to be sufficient reason to pay the innovation reward. To classify the degree of uniqueness for a product innovation a distinct grading can be found. A fairly small innovation is often named a facelift, that is, the new look or new furnishings of a serial model such as an automobile. A rather significant innovation is called a blockbuster, that is, a breakthrough in what an existing product has to offer, with really new features, for example, a novel therapeutic agent. On the other hand, the notion of exclusivity is often used in advertising as a special claim and an expensive trait, sometimes without being necessarily connected to radical uniqueness. Instead of a new product it can be equally profitable for a creative entrepreneur to introduce a new process in the production of a product, like a new course of action, a new finish, or a new procedure in assembly. The innovation reward, however, is then realized more indirectly by reduced production costs or improved quality in comparison to competitors, giving raise to higher number of sales and/or earnings. Such process innovations have also a distinct discrimination for their degree of economic advantage. A very small innovation is known as kaizen or continuous improvement process CIP, for example, in the assembly of complex vehicles like cars, trucks, airplanes, or their various modules within the supply chain. A rather fundamental change of a process is known as kaikaku, or reengineering, that is, the introduction of and the changeover to faster, cheaper, or more reliable processes, for example for painting or for cleaning processes [7]. Further sales can be obtained through innovative marketing, for example, in advertising, in market development, or in product placement. Especially in our time of globalization the advantages seem very promising, although the reward for marketing innovations is not easily correlatable to the sales of products or services, but can be inferred from the overall economic performance of an enterprise. Thereby, the original idea of an innovation is considerably extended. So it might happen that an increased business volume is achieved by a rather small innovation of a catchy slogan in an advertising message, for example, a jingle as a distinctive mark in broadcasting, television, or telecommunications. Yet, a great breakthrough is also possible by opening of a new market, for example, a strategic commercial partnership with emerging opportunities in China, Brazil, or India.

8 

 1 Innovation

Furthermore, there seem to be innumerable opportunities to create surplus value by innovations within the business organization in general, for example, for the workflow or for collaboration, both internally and/or with external business partners. As before, the reward for such an organizational innovation is difficult to estimate by studying the financial reports, but it can be mainly a result of the experience and the convictions of the executives or their consultants that an innovative organization leads to an enhancement of the whole enterprise. Again, the degree of innovation can be fairly small for an improvement in instruction, training, teambuilding, or by other job qualifications, for example, for engineers, craftsmen, or salesmen. And it can reach really dramatic dimensions in a restructuring of an entire enterprise, which is mostly supported by consulting. Nowadays, it sometimes seems that the growth of an enterprise is mainly due to suitable innovations. For companies on the stock market this occasionally leads to the almost incomprehensible situation, that a projected fantasy of a business plays a more important role than the actual financial achievements of a corporation. This can eventually lead to dramatic bubbles on the stock market, which have recently become more and more frequent—probably due to our modern belief in innovations. The opportunities for economic innovation—as well as their respective profits—seem to be (almost) without any limits. Lesson 2 The benefit of an innovation is a reward for uniqueness!

1.2 Improvement The better is the enemy of the good. from: The Prude—moral conte by Voltaire 1772

In our original understanding, new things emerge from already existing ones through combination. The printing press combined the previously existing stamping of documents with the traditional way of straining wine; the steam engine united the gear drive of previous windmills with an evaporation vessel; the automobile integrated the four-tact engine into the common carriage; the computer merged the mechanical floating point calculator with electronic relays—and the Internet connected computers via communications engineering. Unification, integration, merging, joining, and the like are just different expressions for some kinds of combination. The word combination can even apply to quite abstract items such as mechanics and electronics fusing to mechatronics. Sherlock Holmes used combination to conclude a new understanding of a crime scene. In his book about The Act of Creation

1.2 Improvement 

 9

Arthur Koestler identified virtually all kinds of progress as some sort of combination, for which he coined the term “bisociation” [8]. Thus, the general understanding of innovation is some sort of evolutionary improvement, similar to the process described by Charles Darwin in his famous book about The Origin of Species [9]. A typical innovation evolves from the existing goods and services on the market, just as new life forms have their origin in the existing gene pool. The purpose in both cases is an improved adaptation to the market or to the living conditions, respectively. Darwin described for this the complementary action of random mutations of existing features, on the one hand, and the harsh selection between the good and the better by the environment, on the other. Schumpeter considered combination as the thriving mechanism for new viable goods and services. In both cases the survival of the fittest is the basic mechanism of economic viability or biological survival, respectively. Correspondingly, an innovation can be attached to a certain family tree or a bloodline, that is, previous products, processes, markets, or organizations that were the origin of a business. And principally, the systematic biological classification of species can be applied to innovations in order to identify the degree of descent. Hence, a new species or a respective new merchandize is part of a genus and family, being itself part of an order and class, which belongs to a kingdom and domain of life or of the market. Within a single biological genus—or an economic article, respectively—there is already a broad variability of size, color, form, and composition, so that almost each and every creature or commodity features some specific distinction and uniqueness. Everything in the real world consists of its own particular matter, even if built of the same material with the same properties as others—the basic matter itself always has to be different. And each creature or any product is generated at a different time and different place, with different intentions. In spite of the fact that modern mass production or overpopulation does convey the idea of reproducibility and replaceability, discrepancy to the standard is more regular than compliancy. For example, the body length of humans ranges from about one meter for growth-restricted to about two meters for giants. Additionally, there are different colors of human eyes, hair, and skin. There are also different builds and proportions, for example, muscular, slender, or stocky. And finally, one may even distinguish different hereditary disposition, for example in metabolism or the immune system. Taking all those variations into account, it turns out that each individual person is more or less unique—which is literally the meaning of “individual”. A similar difference can be shown for commodities. It seems to be relatively easy to change the size, and most animals—monkeys, cats, fish, bears, snakes, or spiders— are seen in vastly different sizes. Similarly, there are obviously various dimensions for wheels, motors, computers, vehicles, and other machines on the market in order to achieve as much economic benefit as possible for these products.

10 

 1 Innovation

The variety of colors, too, is large. In Great Britain the moth species Biston bistularia is known to have changed in just a few decades from bright to dark—because of the progressive darkening of the birch crust by exhaust soot at the end of the 19th century—and back from dark to bright, as the air pollution decreased by the 1960s  [10]. Quite similarly, the coloring of products in various shades is a current means to comply with customer requests. Occasionally, all it takes is a white band to give a tire, a car, clothes, or buildings a particular racy appearance. Then, if the form of an object is modified, one may face certain complications. Incidentally, the robustness of an animal gets lost if a desired trait is amplified by breed selection, for example, milk cows, pets, or racing animals have lost their previous ability to survive in nature due to less mobility, inferior strength, delayed reactions, bad health, or fewer instinctive reactions. Accordingly, a suitable caution seems advisable in regard to commercial goods if the construction of a product is altered, for example, a decrease in wall thickness or the profile of a tire, the equipment of a compact car with a roof girder or a trailer. For instance, a new automation of a production line can influence the construction in such a way that the initial output or the previous quality will not be achieved for a considerable time. Also, a very serious incompatibility may arise, if the material composition of an item is changed. Even members of the same family have to take into account several incompatible characteristics for blood donations, such as the blood type and Rhesus factor—and there are forms of hereditary diseases that only occur if both parents dispose of the required disposition. Likewise, it is advisable not to substitute the material or the components of a product or within a process, without at least considering the operational feasibility or the official permission for operation. For example, the replacement of metal parts by plastics is oftenly envisaged to reduce weight and cost in a feasible way; however, the changes in solidity, aging, and wear also have to be considered. It may already be detrimental to change the recommended air pressure of tires, because of traction loss and of inferior rolling characteristics. These progressive adaptations can be so numerous that the diversity in equipment of complex products, such as cars, computers, or machinery, has meanwhile achieved some sort of individualization, that is, the rate of identical products is lower than two. For buses and trucks it is nowadays quite seldom the case that two or even three entirely identical items are delivered. On the contrary, it is rather probable that each and every item has a particular uniqueness. Accordingly, this unique proposition justifies a special reward. And an item built on purpose sometimes legitimates some sort of award, though not being a real novelty in the sense of an innovation. The choice of extras can be assumed as some sort of usual promotion and merchandizing. On first glance, the main difference between evolution in biology and in economics seems to be fitness for life and profit on the market, respectively. However, even this discrepancy is increasingly vanishing. Other than an expectable surplus value, today’s innovations follow more and more the purpose of sustainability,

1.2 Improvement 

reward

 11

sustainment arbitrage effort

Figure 1.5: Innovation reward by sustainment in spite of a decreasing arbitrage.

that is, conservation, maintenance, or stabilization of the price level. As modern customers expect a certain gradual reduction in price, an evolutionary improvement stands rather for the conservation of value than for a surplus. And the innovation reward is hidden by the absence of the actual upcoming markdown (see Figure 1.5). Evolution is full of novelties whose value can hardly be calculated—or even estimated, as the basic acquirements of the human life include an undeniable worth. Furthermore, these accomplishments are achieved in a most natural way, and therefore an innovation reward seems an inappropriate reward for the workers’ efforts. For example, the mastering of fire, transportation on wheels, the cultivation of land, or an artificial irrigation have been quite radical novelties in the evolution of humanity. And it is obviously extremely difficult to assign a reasonable value for these achievements. For, how much is it worth to know how to heat something or to be able to convey heavy loads or to grow your own food or to obtain sufficient water supply? Obviously a great deal! But how much are you willing to pay for the knowledge of handling fire or for the freedom of movement on wheels or for the permission to plant crops or to provide water? In general, reasonably little! For, many things and terms are considered to be a product of nature and hence free of charge—and equally indefeasible and infinitely precious at the same time. This econometrical paradox for price formation applies similarly to innovations. If a novelty has become a common part of our lives, it loses its particular value. It does not become completely worthless, but the surplus value is not realizable. Accordingly, even patent rights expire after a certain time, that is, when the innovation is no longer new enough for uniqueness. If an innovation is well established, an economic value can hardly be estimated. And surely, it seems rather late to speak of an innovation reward when the invention is already widespread and commonly accepted. To exemplify this, a great many former novelties can be cited that today are available without any innovation surplus, for example, the wheel, the hammer, the chair, or even the modern communication tools such as telephones, radios, and televisions. Surely, you have to pay extra for innovative features but not anymore for the original application itself.

12 

 1 Innovation

Then again, there are also examples for common goods without any arbitrage but with a pricing made up of fees, charges, dues, tolls, taxes, commissions, or royalties. In the original meaning, they should never exhibit a reasonable surplus, and therefore the related changes can hardly be called innovations. But they might achieve a redistribution of value as subjected to a monopoly position by authorities, which is sometimes also called “innovative”. For instance, social innovations seem peculiar, since community and humaneness are inestimable values in a human life. Social provisions for healthcare, accident compensation, retirement, or unemployment have meanwhile become a common feature in advanced countries. And likewise it seems absurd to talk about innovation, if only the support of the insurances is reduced or ordered by decree. The reward for these activities is rather an economization of social funds than an advancement of the support. And the profit is then just due to a monopoly of the governmental framework and not an achievement of performance, which would justify an innovation reward. In a similar way, good education is invaluable, as the saying goes, and therefore there is virtually no reward for an educational innovation. Education has become a common feature of human life, without any liquidable monetary value, similar to our hands, language, culture, and civilization. If someone is not “in-structed” today, he or she is practically handicapped. Please note again the prefix “in” indicating the need of an intention. As a consequence, elementary schooling should be a human right and free of charge for everybody. But the reward for educational innovation is a saving in public funding rather than advances in qualification. The profit is due to the monopolizing position of the governmental authority. Obviously, there is no real market for education and hence it is questionable to speak of innovation in this context. Furthermore, the value of public services is difficult to measure in general. Hence, an institutional innovation seems pointless, if this means that public services just become private. In many countries public services were privatized for various services such as mail, telephones, garbage collection and disposal and electricity, as well as partially for water, road maintenance, and even the police and some military operations. Since there is no real choice, if your property is attached to a certain network or belongs to a certain community, these private services have to be expensively regulated by another public agency to avoid abuse of the created monopoly position. And the innovation reward is often negative for the citizen customer, in terms of less service, more quarrels, and higher expenses for the new institutions. Finally, the arts and culture need to be mentioned as indispensable parts of civilization. Hence, a surplus value seems to be a somewhat doubtful concept for a cultural innovation. Internet services, public viewing, and music castings are examples of how the appearance of consumers, athletes, or artists have changed in their actions. If proposals, sport events, or music are monopolized by media and thereby

1.3 Disruption 

 13

conveyed merchandizing, the appreciation of performances is rather limited to those who govern these media. Somehow “novel” seems just the new commercialization of the event, not of the particular achievements. Lesson 3 Some innovations do not provide a perceptible surplus value!

1.3 Disruption Unless you expect the unexpected, you will not find it, for it is hidden and thickly tangled. fragment #18 by Heraclitus about 500 BC

Some things cannot be explained by a continuous improvement of things passed down. The motor did not evolve from better breeding of horses, neither was electric light derived from improved candles, nor do photographs and paintings have a common origin. Thus sometimes an innovation is, so to speak, part of a different “blood line” and replaces the previous heritage. Obviously, there is likely to be another mechanism at work. Such discontinuous jumps or disruptions are also known in nature by the term “exaptation” [11]. As some features of biological species can hardly be explained by a smooth transformation, one is tempted to take that as proof for the action of a supernatural creator. But it can also be explained by mere application of an already existing feature to an occasional purpose. For example, the human wrist is a wonder of flexibility, which makes crafts and all kind of manual techniques possible. Its origin, however, was a long evolution of the climbing abilities of our primate ancestors. Leaving aside the climbing purpose, this ability proved to be also highly advantageous for crafts. In a similar way, the evolution of products, processes, sales, and organizations may be disrupted by substitutes that already existed in other applications (see Figure 1.6). For instance, the photochemical film in photography was replaced

reward

n

tio

up

r dis

sustainment arbitrage other arbitrage effort

Figure 1.6: Innovation reward by disrupting a sustained business case.

14 

 1 Innovation

by light-sensitive semiconductor sensors known since long, but then applied on a microchip. And electricity was primarily generated by charge separation until Siemens applied the effect of displacement current by magnets, the principle of which had been known more than three decades ago. Retail sale by mail order was available long ago, but the disruption of shop sales began with Internet commerce. And organizational disruption of enterprises is mostly based on a new structure, where neglected divisions become prominent and top positions are rationalized. Thus, disruptions are obviously always revolutionary. No one will give up using his or her hands voluntarily, and if forced to do so, it is called handicapped. Almost all modern photography and electricity are based on digital cameras and dynamos with only some scientific or artistic exceptions. Horses have lost their predominant role for transportation and are mostly restricted to sports and hobbies. Paintings and drawings are now used to explain or are for enjoyment but have ceased to document events. And candles are now only burned by rich people ever since electric light became so cheap, as Edison put it. Although a disruption is always somewhat revolutionary, it can still be either incremental or radical. Mounting a four-stroke engine onto a carriage might be a comparatively small step for an inventor, yet a big step for human transport. Introducing cellphone communication to millions of people requires heavy investment and research in broadcasting technology, which obviously is not a slight incremented curve. Other than an evolutionary improvement, a disruption crosses the expected development path. Whether this is incrementally light or radically hard to achieve is another question. A comparison between mere improvements and disrupting innovations can never be fair. At first glance, improvements have the unbeatable advantage of already being fit for market. The risks are considerably lower if you can count on a fallback position when the presumed achievements fail. At the least, one can learn and understand better why one has failed and apply that acquired knowledge as an investment for all kinds of further improvements. Probably one might experience some difficult—and laborious—time, as well. But if one is clever enough, careful, and vigilant, they will not lose at all. Thus, if one is doing the “right” thing, they will never fail. But “right” is not a qualification that is available in reality. On a second glance, mere improvements have the inherent disadvantage of focusing activity on what is already known. And there may be a completely different understanding of products, processes, sales, or organizations of “your” market. For instance, tape cassettes were promoted with the slogan “damned close to CDs”—while being replaced on the market. And for sure, film photography was at its best at the very moment when it was being replaced by CCD cameras. Thus, even if one does all the right things, one can be outsmarted by something unexpected. Any way you look at it, one can discover advantages and disadvantages for improvements and for their disruption. Thus, there is always some sort of dilemma, as Christensen put it [12]. The ambiguity consists of a sustaining innovation, on the one hand, and substituting

1.3 Disruption 

 15

innovation, on the other. And obviously, you cannot promote both at the same time. If one attempts to cross the evolutionary path, it will be detrimental to pursue any evolutionary improvement, and vice versa. As long as it is not entirely certain that improvement or disruption will succeed or fail, there is a need to decide and then get under way. The genuine difference is that disruptions face a multitude of problems and need countless solutions to overcome unknown challenges, whereas improvements can pursue just one new solution in general. For example, modern transportation was not just the result of the introduction of motor cars by Benz in 1885 but also of suitable roadways, as introduced by McAdam in 1815, and of reliable tires engineered by Michelin in 1889. Benz could only experience his new product in the framework of the then available road network, and Michelin had to adapt the new loads and speeds of automobiles on bad road conditions. It is reported, that on a long-distance drive from Bordeaux to Paris in 1895 about 50 flat tires had to be mended—and 22 entirely replaced—on a traveling distance of about 1200 km or 750 miles. This is why disruptions are somewhat harder to achieve. In an investigation of about 200,000 Russian originator certificates between 1946 and 1971 Altshuller classified some 32% of them as rather trivial solutions and another 45% as insignificant improvements; he counted 18% as inventive and just 4% as truly novel; less than 1% were based on new discoveries. Although this deployment during a particular period in a limited market with particular restrictions can hardly be seen as representative, it might give us an idea of the range between improvements and disruptions. In order to enhance disruptions, it turns out to be helpful to always keep a certain record of other parallel achievements. For instance, if you know about the progress of electronic sensors and you know about the progress of electric actuators and you know about progress in data handling, in processing, in computing and in embedded systems—as well as particular knowledge in a certain industrial field—thus, if you know all about these emerging aspects, you can perhaps imagine a new age of cyber physical systems CPS disrupting industrial engineering business in a most revolutionary way. This mechanism is known in modern evolution theory under the term “epigenetics”. Apparently the major part of the genetic code is deactivated and works like a tacit memory card. If stressed by hunger, injury, disease, or other life events, certain codes can be activated and/or others blocked, in order to furnish a more suitable genetic disposition. And apparently, in case of success, this new code can also be passed on. In this way, even larger adaptations can be achieved within a lifetime if required. This may explain some extraordinary features of humankind, such as the ability to survive with different nourishment and under diverse climate conditions. Thus it becomes plausible that even detrimental changes can evolve if the benefits exceed the losses. For example, the human ability to pronounce distinctly requires a broader throat and provokes a new threat of choking and suffocation when swallowing, as one may experience when speaking at mealtimes. But apparently this

16 

 1 Innovation

risk is negligible on the evolutionary scale in regard to all the advantages of human communication. Correspondingly, disruptions cause a drastic change of the existing economic concept and can hardly ever be removed afterwards. Virtually no one today will insist on producing clothing only from fiber plants, on transporting heavy loads by bare muscle force, or doing complex calculations solely with his brain. In this way, disruptive innovations cause a creative destruction, as Schumpeter put it. As already explained for evolutionary improvements, innovations cause a certain compulsion of adaptation that cannot really be avoided. If any novelty is sufficiently well established, there appears to be a certain necessity of its use, despite the fact that the previous condition was basically adequate. For instance, music recordings on gramophone disks or magnetic tapes were quite convenient for a long time, but are hardly available at all anymore. Public phone booths are hard to find nowadays, if one does not happen to have a cell phone. While evolutionary improvements change the lead role within a given business, disruptions change the rules of previous business. Thus the impact of a disruption can be examined by a STEP analysis, acronym for sociological, technological, economic, and political impacts. For instance, the introduction of social networks via mobile Internet disrupted former communication business with revolutionary effects on advertising and personal rights. Even if you do not participate in a certain platform, information about you may be shared by others. In general, modern technologies disrupted the way of earlier business investment with revolutionary effects on pricing and stock markets. Every once in a while the “fantasy” of a new technology causes venture bubbles with drastic influence on the “real” business. Ecologically the production of energy disrupted the previous footprint of humanity with inestimable effects on oceans, shores, and the climate; while disasters of nuclear power plants or deep-sea drilling seem to be somewhat restricted to a certain region, air pollution spreads all over the world. And political innovations are disrupting the habit of living with unavoidable effects even to those who oppose them: if new means for disease treatment, weapons, or international transfer become available, virtually no one can continue without new medication, armament, or international regulations. As those disruptive innovations reveal, it is no longer a special pricing or yield that characterizes them. In spite of the fact that social networks, technology investments, energy supply, and globalization have become a considerable business for banking and other services, this somehow cannot just be explained by novelty but more by exploitation of the uniqueness of a newly created situation. Here again, innovation does not exhibit a perceptible valuable asset. The very word “innovation” has itself become a synonym for value, success, and maybe even happiness. And it is voluntarily implied as an argument for all sorts of changes, in order to prevent criticism—or put other options in a worthless, failed, and unfortunate position. This aspect of language disruption becomes discernible

1.4 Technology 

 17

when discoveries are propagated as being innovative, for example, a new finding in history like a missing link for the evolution of the species. Those discoveries may be revolutionary because they change and perhaps disrupt the way we were previously thinking. They also destroy the previous agenda and force everyone to take this new sight into consideration. But it should not be confused with the requirements for an innovation within the economic framework. Lesson 4 Some innovations cause a creative destruction!

1.4 Technology Following the industrial principle to split each production process into its constituting elements [industrialists] created the quite modern science of technology. from: Capital, Volume 1, Part 1, by Karl Marx 1867

The word “technique” literally means an artful execution and related artistic opportunities, in contrast to natural conditions and occurring constraints. And due to the claimed purpose of an intentionally pursued target, an innovation is always somewhat artificial and therefore technical. In this broad understanding it is not necessarily required that an innovation be due to a technical improvement, like the achievements of the Industrial Revolution, as depicted in Figure 1.3. It can simply be business-minded cleverness, as in the story of Thales of Miletus and his oil press monopoly as an innovative investment. One might mention here that the origin of the term “technique” is reported in the dialogue “Protagoras” by Plato in the sense of an oration technique. In today’s application of the word, in general, an engineered item is implied. The word “technical” stands for an assemblage of objects, operations, and factual systems with a practical usability, in contrast to artistic objects, operations, and performances with an appreciated impact. In particular, a technical innovation requires a certain economic advantage by users: just a demonstration, a pleasure, some verve, or amusement is not sufficient. As for technology, there are two slightly different connotations: One is the concerted action of all kinds of techniques to run a certain business, that is, the technical logic of an enterprise. The other is a collection of tools, machinery, arrangements, and procedures used to generate a desired effect. However, if the business model of an enterprise has to fulfill a certain desire of its clients, both definitions actually merge. A particular distinction can be made between a crafts and an industrial enterprise, since crafters usually employ certain techniques, whereas industry depends on appropriate technologies.

18 

 1 Innovation

Furthermore, one may distinguish that academic instruction in engineering is mainly about scientific techniques, whereas the industrial pursuit is about technology. This is one reason why alumni often complain that their education does not completely match their later job qualification requirements. The majority of schooling concerns general technical skills, whereas a job profile only requires those lessons that are used within the technological focus of the employer. Historically, a widespread implementation of technologies in business took place in the period between the American Civil War and World War I, which in the United States is called Gilded Age, in France the Belle Epoque, and in Germany the Gründerzeit, meaning a period of promoterism. Industrial engineers like Andrew Carnegie, Thomas Edison, or Nicolas Tesla in the United States; Ernest Solvay, Gustave Eiffel, or Ferdinand de Lesseps in France; or Werner Siemens, Gottlieb Daimler, and Robert Bosch in Germany were not only outstanding engineers but also skillful businessmen who understood and managed their enterprises in a technological way. In particular, technology is the framework with which innovations are created. Improvements happen by an evolution of the given technology of an enterprise, and disruptions happen by the revolution of a technology of a business and its substitution. Inherently, technological innovations are therefore always somewhat disruptive. For example, the technology of semiconductors did not just lead to new products like transistors, but subsequently enabled innumerable innovations, such as radios, televisions, clocks, computers, smartphones, informatics, the Internet, and many other electronic devices. These technological innovations often mark the beginning of a new era, for example, the steam engine, steel production, electronics, plastics, or radio broadcasting. In retroperspective it appears that a novel technology has determined the entire economic world, like the new Internet economy in regard to the old industrial economy. In 1926 Nikolai Kondratiev already discerned a Theory of Long Waves of the world economy based on the change of technologies [13] (see Figure 1.7). In particular, his investigation suggests an almost regular cycle of some fifty years beginning with the mechanization due to the steam engine from about 1780, which

boom

recess

1780 mechanization

1840 propulsion

1890 electrification

1940 automation

1990 information

Figure 1.7: Kondratieff’s long wave cycles of the economy by technological innovation.

1.4 Technology 

 19

disrupted the mechanical processes in mining, cloth production, and subsequently in all kinds of physical labor. From about 1840 Bessemer steel production disrupted the building of propulsion machines for railroads, steamboats, and finally automobiles, and enabled the first kind of global economy. From about 1870 the period of electrification and chemical technologies disrupted mechanical engineering during the Gilded Age as previously mentioned. From about 1940 semiconductor switches disrupted process engineering by electronic automation of machines and data handling by computers. And since about 1990 we are experiencing a second period of globalization by technological means of information networks and ubiquitous electronic communications. This is obviously just a rough sketch in regard to the times and topics mentioned above. For example, there had already been some sort of chemical industry before 1890, for example the production of sulfuric acid since 1746, of soda since 1791, and of fertilizers since 1857. Also, automation was known before 1940, for example, by the famous assembly-line production of the Ford Model T from 1908 to 1927. The Internet also had its precursor between 1969 and 1982, the ARPANET of the US Air Force. Thus, several suggestions have been put forward to group the relevant technologies and their related periods in different or broader terms, such as a pre-cycle in England, or the inclusion of fundamental techniques such as the hand ax, the wheel, fire, the plough, the boat, or navigation and mathematics. Apparently the concept of regular economic waves of new technologies is contestable and does not provide a simplified message. Without any doubt, however, technological innovations have always impacted the world market and the global economy. For example, the steam engine substituted muscle work of animals and of men, Bessemer steel put carpenters out of work, electrical appliances replaced many services for households, automation reduced human control and the Internet supplanted many intermediary traders. One recent suggestion is the concept of a fourth industrial revolution, where the first is attributed to the replacement of labor by engines, the second to a reduction of mechanical processes due to electricity and chemistry, and the third to the substitution of human oversight by stored program control SPC. Now, the merging of sensors, actuators, and artificial intelligence is likely to disrupt a fourth time the way industrial business is done and will supplant several current procedures. This also might be the reason to study technology for innovation purposes: Since technology is the framework for every innovation, technological change has an enormous impact on innovative disruptions. The future heavily interferes with the present value system, as Schumpeter already stated back in 1911. And technological development is the key to future value systems. A modern entrepreneur should therefore not only know and screen the technological portfolio of the enterprise but also monitor the relevant indicators for technological development. He or she should scout out and forecast possible scenarios, as well as assess and match these to his own strategic management decisions.

20 

 1 Innovation

Technological transfer options should also be elaborated in comprehensive programs on developmental roadmaps. Just as the road of technological development is paved with innovations, technology management is also required to ensure innovation. In the stock markets corporations with a modern technology business are named “tech-shares”, such as for electronic communications and bio- or web-technology and listed in the “technology index” NASDAQ. And by “innovative shares” we mean corporations with activities in the field of the probable next technological disruption. Technological innovations correspond to the second-order solutions, as described by Watzlawick et al. [14]. A first-order solution is established by clever application of known principles. But a second-order solution includes an ingenious change of the premises. For instance, telegraphic data transmission was accelerated by the Morse code but was still rather slow until frequency modulation enabled a completely different way of data compression. Also, dishwashing detergents for doing dishes by hand rely on suds rinsing agents, whereas with a dishwasher the adhering fat and grease is used to produce a rinsing effect without suds. Depending on the case, new technologies are of a different order. Such second-order solutions are based on a particular projection of ideas, that is, they consider what would be possible under other premises. This sometimes misleads to rather strange fictional illusions, such as space travel at speeds faster than light to other planets and personal encounters with aliens. At first glance, this does not seem really helpful for an innovation manager because even the scientific premises for such a technology are beyond reach. Yet, sometimes even the strangest concepts of technology have the potential to inspire realistic possibilities, when stripped to the essential idea. For example, the fictional flight to the moon as conceived by Jules Verne in 1865 was achieved by means of a cannon, since an effective onboard propulsion technology was unimaginable in his time. Yet, Verne’s lunar module, which was supposed to weigh some 10 tons, was close to the real 15 tons of NASA’s Eagle in 1969. And both departed from Florida. It may be economically quite useful to prepare for new technologies, for example, to fund public support or to introduce competence in an early stage. With respect to the evolutionary pressure of creative destruction it appears even mandatory to be prepared for new markets, so as not to suffer later on from the detrimental effects of a substitution. Accordingly, The Sixth Kondratieff by Nefiodow in 1996 is a further outline of future technologies, highlighting in particular the necessity for sustainable technologies, such as renewable energy resources, biological nanotechnologies, and psychosocial healthcare [15]. Another futuristic scenario is the merging of technology and humanity into some sort of Transhumanism. In particular, information technology might drastically increase the hereditary abilities of the human species. In fact, recent examples of that sort of innovations support this vision: functional garments enhance the natural

1.4 Technology 

 21

abilities of human performance in sport activities that are not innate to humans, such as swimming, skiing, or cycling. Or they extend the range of human activities to incredible water depths, outer space, or places of intense heat. Furthermore, prostheses or other artificial limbs can be linked to the human nervous system to accomplish a high level of movement and feeling. Powerful machines or miniaturized appliances can be directly controlled and operated by human brain activity. And human organs can be replaced by organ transplantation, by technical substitutes, or even by generation of new organs from stem cells. By “singularity” we mean an envisioned event where natural evolution is outperformed by technology. A related inquiry by Kurzweil predicts this event to happen by about the year 2045 [16]. In preparation for that, together with Diamandis, he founded in 2008 the Singularity University, situated at the NASA Research Park in California, to gradually overcome the limits of human life. Lesson 5 Technology is the framework for innovations!

2 Science I’ll get you all you wish and more, it’s true. The task is light, yet light is heavy, too. It lies already there, but how to reach it? Aye, there’s the art, but where’s the man to teach it? from: Faust, Second Part of the Tragedy by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1832 [1]

Science is the art of understanding the nature of reality. Yet, science is restricted to the respective conditions of the present state of that art. In consequence, science is not just a description of real perceptions, which is mainly a cause for some irritation for people without scientific instruction. But science requires education, literally meaning guidance beyond the appearances. However, science does not include an understanding beyond reality, such as astrological constellations, religious convictions, or other supernatural concepts. And this is sometimes a delusion for people with personal faith in esoteric or magic apparitions. The classical philosophers Plato and Aristotle already discerned two sources of scientific truth: true by fact and true by reason [16]. Kant concluded in his Critique of Pure Reason, that just one of those truths can never be true by itself: Factual observations are insignificant without reasonable definitions of human concepts, and reasonable thoughts are irrelevant without factual substance [18]. A simple perception of facts is not enough to be called scientific knowledge but is just an experience, and sophisticated reasoning is insufficient to be scientifically reliable but is only a scientifically arguable hypothesis. Similar to an innovation, not only reasonable ideas of the human mind are required but a durable verification by physical facts is also necessary. Science itself can be regarded as the greatest innovation of humanity in general. Just take a look at its innovation characteristics as given in the first chapter of this book: It was intentionally instituted and has both incremental as well as radical impacts on prosperity and wealth; it shows evolutionary improvements within the framework of the appropriate theories, as well as revolutionary disruptions by change of those theories from time to time, as Kuhn showed in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [19]. Reciprocally, innovations are based on scientific progress that enables new technologies. Thus, science and innovation are truly closely correlated terms. The main difference is that science is about knowledge and innovation is about business. Surely, one may argue that science also needs business, and at times even a great deal of it. And conversely, business also needs knowledge, and ignorance of scientific premises is often one of the main causes economies fail. But this argumentation holds true for other terms as well: for instance, knowledge is power, as stated by Francis Bacon [20]—and time is money, as attributed to Benjamin Franklin [21]. Consequently, the power to save time links all of these aspects together and

2 Science 

 23

insinuates that they are almost all the same thing. This is why it may be going too far to equate science and innovation. However, it may be helpful to investigate similarities in order to transfer useful knowledge about science for the purpose of innovation management. The traditional way of science is from facts to figures, that is, from factual physics to reasonable metaphysics, which literally means the nature behind the physical appearances. Actually, in nature no one can ever experience something like a mechanical force, an electrical charge, a chemical reaction of molecules, a mathematical integration of data, a complex in its psychological or therapeutic meaning, or a virus infection on a cellular scale. Changes in reality are the only things we can observe. And a metaphorical or metaphysical understanding of nature behind reality helps us to explain these changes. The traditional benefit of the scientific approach is to act appropriately—if the figure fits to the facts, that is. Obviously, the way of innovation is the opposite, that is, from reasoned imagination to factual realization. This might be why it took so long for humanity to establish a general acceptance of this novel direction, as previously described about the origins of innovation. Only by a sufficient scientific knowledge of approved understanding can one begin to use this understanding to change the very nature of things through the introduction of technology. With only limited understanding, the chance of error and failure is generally much too large. The title of this book can be either understood as innovations in science or the scientific methods for innovations. However, if we discard for a moment the idea of economic interests in genuine scientific work, there are no real—that is, economic— innovations to be expected from science. Yet, science has allocated an enormous inventory of methods that can be readily applied to bring about innovation. More than 2,500 years elapsed between the earliest scientific discoveries and the first innovations in the professional significance of this book. The scientific understanding in the age of the classics—literally meaning the first level—can be useful for an understanding of the processes of innovations. The origins of science emerged from the prehistoric times of humanity, when no scientific theories were available, yet. Only phenomena—which literally means “appearances”—were regarded as rules of nature and handed down as myths—which literally means tales. This mythological interpretation of earthly phenomena was then attributed to the activities of supernatural gods. For example, in Greek mythology the messenger for divine law and decisions is Hermes and consequently hermeneutics in science means the interpretation of axiomatic prescriptions. With regard to innovations this aspect of science is still useful for describing, claiming, and defending a novel idea and its related patent, in order to obtain and maintain exclusivity for the marketing of an invention. However, in connection with the rise of philosophy—literally meaning love of wisdom—it became imaginable that normal appearances rely on impersonal rules and on some hidden laws of nature. Thus, the quest for a natural phenomenon became

24 

 2 Science

merely an understanding of the principle behind the appearance—and no longer the acceptance of divine capriciousness. At the beginning of this novel insight stands the reported exclamation of Archimedes Heureka—literally meaning: I have found out—when he discerned the principle of buoyancy in his bathtub. Therefore, in science the term “heuristics” stands for a very practical understanding of observations. In regard to innovations this aspect of science applies to the rather incremental progress in exploring and extending the impact of the present technology to an obvious improvement. Thus, an analysis of the classics already permits us to link some scientific aspects to innovations. And again the interaction of facts and reason becomes evident: hermeneutic reasoning alone is worthless without any realistic impact, and heuristic progress by itself is futile without any ideas which can be reliably defended. The combination of these two aspects of scientific truth is probably so familiar to us that we imply understanding by mere observation, and we imagine realization by pure explanation. Only through a deeper investigation, for example, at court or in other disputable cases, does the proceeding distinguish more correctly whether a statement is due to a certain fact or just due to a general reasoning on the issue. During the Renaissance these two aspects of science were slowly revived. The principle of induction improved heuristic understanding by the concept of systematic research. In his programmatic work Instauratio Magna the Lord Chancellor of England Sir Francis Bacon demanded a comprehensive investigation program and named some twenty laboratories, which he called chambers or houses, to discern all the secrets of the world within a period of some decades. Meanwhile, it has become clear that this approach was a huge underestimation of the effort and time needed. Yet, the concept of institutions dedicated to the synthesis of more reliable scientific expertise has become generally accepted. The principle of deduction also improved the hermeneutic interpretation by methodic analysis. The French scientist René Descartes described in his work Discours de la Méthode a procedure of how to analyze—literally meaning disassemble— an accepted belief until elementary notions are obtained, which can be verified by facts. Meanwhile it has become clear that it sometimes takes more than a lifetime to discern even simple theoretical concepts, and even an enormous number of analytical steps by computer algorithms is sometimes not enough for that purpose. However, the concept of obligatory methods for more convincing scientific argumentation has been generally accepted. Induction and deduction are still the fundaments of any scientific examination. And there is a never-ending dispute among scientists about which of the two builds the primary source of science. An understanding induced just from facts corresponds to the ideology of materialism, apparently without any theoretical ideas behind it. In science; this approach is also called empiricism. On the other hand, an understanding deduced just from theories corresponds to the ideology of idealism, relying in the end on some sort of religious dogma. In science this is also called rationalism.

2 Science 

 25

Many scientists tend to turn away from any idealistic aspects in science. It is told that Albert Einstein should once have been confronted with the claim of a student at Princeton that his theory of relativity was merely contrived and had nothing in common with any realistic perception—and the student insisted that he himself believed only in notions that can be sensually experienced: seen, heard, tasted, touched, or experienced by any other human sense. Einstein should have been replied by simply asking the student to come forward and please make exactly this belief sensually perceptible to the others present. The lesson of this anecdote is that idealistic belief cannot be avoided in science, or, as Schopenhauer [22] stated: “Physics is unable to stand on its own feet, but needs some metaphysics on which to support itself, whatever noble pretending to be towards the latter.” So far, the similarity of science and innovation seems clear. An innovation is deduced from rational arguments and ideas, yet has to be induced by facts, while at the same time only experiencing perceptible things will never lead to an innovation without some idealistic notion. The main activities in science are the generation, distribution, and application of knowledge, all of which are equally part of innovations. The main difference is that a scientist tries to find out about already existing things, starting with induction, whereas an innovator tries to create new things, and therefore has to begin with deduction. And this causes some difficulty, which will be explained in the following. According to the canonical classification of science—literally meaning the guideline classes—a factual truth is only really true if it corresponds exactly to a fact. For instance, a certain effect has to be proven and confirmed to be true, for example, the impact of a new medicine. But a reasonable truth is already true if it does not contradict the obvious facts. For example, the declaration of certain effectiveness is often plausibly true, for example, the perception of wellbeing during a therapeutic treatment. It is remarkable here that scientific reasoning contains considerably more freedom for creativity, whereas purely sticking to the facts seems a somewhat inept way to make any kind of innovation. For example, the reorganization of complex manufacturing systems may be highly profitable, as described by the theory of lean thinking [23]. However, as the authors of that theory Womack and Jones pointed out, sometimes profit vanishes completely if there is attempt to verify by the fact how each action works and interacts within the system. A deductive proof using the essential elements, as conceived by Descartes, often costs more than it saves. Therefore, it is recommended that we remain on the level of rule-of-thumb explanations and monitor the integral changes. The scientific insistence of factual truth can obviously prohibit an innovation. But also pure reasoning has a so-called ontological problem—literally meaning a problem of generalization. Whether someone who possesses $1,000 can be regarded as rich depends on where one lives and what aspirations one has, as Kant argued— of course he spoke of thalers, which was the currency of his time and place. A US citizen or a third-world resident will see their wealth quite differently, as will also a

26 

 2 Science

millionaire or an ascetic monk. These subjective views are countless, making a generalized view useless. It is always tempting for innovators to simply establish a different way of thinking rather than arriving at some facts. But it must also be considered that while a subjective opinion may be true it is not necessarily easy to arrive at an objective agreement. This appears to be crucial for any innovation. Accordingly, reasoning is not a license to explain all kinds of effects caused by supernatural forces or energy flow in the way esoteric, magical, or occultist circles do. Force and energy are real phenomena that can be actually measured and physically calculated. If the real facts are not known, it does not really help to apply factual terms in order to make them appear believable. A statement of virtual facts that cannot be verified does not count as a scientific proof. Thus, scientism does not mean scientific, but it only means an inappropriate application of scientific means for esoteric, religious, mythical, magical, or occult purposes. Consequently, objectivity has come to be a further requirement in modern sciences, in particular since the Age of Enlightenment. While medieval sciences were strongly subject to hermeneutic interpretation of the Bible and other traditional scriptures, nowadays factual objectivity is mandatory, and mere subjective convictions without provable consequences are inchoate. The philosopher Schopenhauer described the process of objectivation as a procedure that begins with subjective ideas and the human will to make this idea become a reality. It is by focusing on objectives that individual ideas will agree with perceptions of other people and become scientifically sound. Obviously, the concept of objectivation describes a particular approach of an innovator (see Figure 2.1). deduction hermeneutics

SCIENCE

facts

objectivation

heuristics induction

Figure 2.1: Objectivation of science by continuous compilation of facts and reason.

reason

2 Science 

 27

Factual truths are always subject to a law of conservation. This means that stated facts and properties from a scientific investigation must be kept to at all times— nothing comes from nothing, as Parmenides stated already about 500 BC. All real facts exist independently of man’s ideas and desires, and therefore remain somewhat constant. All apparent change of natural properties—for example, mass, volume, energy, or electric charge—is virtual or a zero-sum game, respectively. This is the basis for all equation formulas in science, where any change of appearances is described by a collection of given parameters, on one side, and an equality of resulting parameters, on the other. Also, every change of the premises is due to a shift in input parameters with regard to a similar shift in output parameters. In this way it becomes actually possible to establish an equation and conclude a measurable result for variations. Inversely, the law of conservation for factual truths corresponds to an exclusion potential, which means that nothing can vanish into nothing. A scientific analysis— which literally means dissection—breaks down an observation into single testable statements, which remain true in any subsequent composition—that is, synthesis. This scientific procedure is found in all kinds of scientific approaches. For example, mechanical bodies are broken up and reassembled to form new ones, and mechanical forces are decomposed and recomposed in an appropriate manner by vector analysis; the distribution of things in processes is separated and then mixed to form new compositions, and chemical bonding is dissolved and subsequently reacted to form new molecules in chemistry; nuclear operations consist of fission and fusion to split or merge new atoms, and mathematical calculus is built on differential and integral operations to calculate infinitesimal changes; economic accounting compares assets and liabilities to establish a balance, and entrepreneurial projects are split into working packages and framed within a structured plan. In anticipation of the management of innovations we can already disclose that an innovation project is analyzed in a similar way for success factors and phases and integrated by promoters and the appropriate culture. In contrast, the truth of reason is apparently related to a law of entropy, which literally means changeability. This means that reasonable explanations can virtually increase unlimitedly. As long as there is no objection arising from facts, all thought is free, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights [24]. It is a perplexing peculiarity of science that the metaphors required to describe knowledge are incredibly variable. Since the metaphysical notions in the science of art are not in fact manifested by natural facts, they can be infinitely specified with new definitions. For mental concepts—for example, interpretations, theories, hypotheses, or fantasies— there is always room for further ideas. And every attempt to explain a new inspiration needs new expressions to describe it. For instance, if you compare the amount of fictional and nonfictional literature in any given library, fiction will outnumber nonfiction by at least one order of

28 

 2 Science

magnitude. In this way in the end it becomes finally possible to create something genuinely new that exceeds the framework of mere redistribution. And inversely again, this law of entropy corresponds to a certain dispersion potential, which means that there is a certain compulsion to attribute to an idea an endless series of new paraphrases or circumlocutions, until an official realization and a general public understanding are reached. A concept without factual representation vanishes into nothing when it is no longer taken up, interpreted, explained, and commented. And scientific theories can almost disappear if they are not discussed any more, for example, aether as the matter of light propagation or the phlogistron as the matter for heat expansion. In particular, some topics seem to lead a shadowy existence when only being discussed by a small group of experts, for example tachyons [25] moving against time or quantum entanglement [26] permitting teleportation. A notion that is unfashionable during a certain period may be suppressed for a long time until eventually rediscovered in the light of newly discovered facts. For instance, Lamarck’s theory of adaptation from around 1800 was disrupted by Darwin’s theory of evolution in 1859 and then more recently reestablished by the new field of epigenetics, that is, genetic changes within a lifetime due to switchable protein sequences in the genetic code. Another example is the development of cosmology: The theory of the circular rotation of planets around the sun, as conceived by Copernicus in 1543, was improved in 1609 by Kepler’s concept of elliptical orbits, and this explanation was in turn disrupted by Newton’s theory of mutual gravitational attraction in 1686, until finally understood as some sort of space warp according to Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1915. A very fascinating wandering theoretical path can be found when following the development of the concept of energy, starting with Joule’s law of energy conservation from 1843 and improved by Clausius’s concept of entropy, that is, heat dissipation, in the 1860s, until disrupted by the concept of Hawking radiation [27] in 1974: According to this newest explanation black holes collect dissipated energy and subsequently blast it away due to quantum effects. This mirrors the concept of factual truths by conservation and the related exclusion potential on an utmost level of theoretical abstraction. This transformation of scientific abstraction from reason to fact and back again to reason—as often as required until things match—is also fundamentally valid for any innovation. Metaphysical convictions can produce endless ideas, and they are at the same time a prerequisite. Then physical proof is required to restrict the rapidly growing amount of fictional persuasions about the feasible options. In general, another surge in fantastic ideas is often required as a consequence in order to recommence when the verifications turn out more or less differently than expected. Here, the mutability of metaphors is a superb vehicle for the generation of any ideas at all and for the creation of innovations. It is the character of reasonable change to

2.1 Elenctic 

 29

follow some sort of cycle, or, as Heraclitus concluded: Change is the only constant in progress. Thus, science and innovation belong themselves to the class of rational truths. They are not real phenomena and therefore they are subject to the law of entropic increase with a given potential of dispersion. In that sense, an evolutionary improvement happens in the framework of a theory, whereas disruptions override the established theories. New technologies can even cause a big bang or economic boom and produce investment bubbles, which disappear into almost nothing when the bubble bursts and the situation is reset to the matters of fact. Innovation requires a sort of convincing poetry; and—as has been already stated at the very beginning of this book—poets were given the prime right to interpret the divine rules of the world in different way. Thus, poets are a sort of basic innovators. Lesson 6 Innovations follow the scientific concept of objectivation!

2.1 Elenctic To know about the unknown is wisdom. Not to know, what you should know is shameful. But only when being ashamed by that shame, will you be without that shame. The scholar is not ashamed, because he suffers from that shame; Therefore, he can work shamelessly on the unknown. from: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 71 by Lao Tzu about 400 BC

The word “elenctic” means the process of conviction through asking, questioning, or by hard examination. In science this conviction concerns the recognition of some ignorance within all presumed knowledge. Since any explanation implies certain abundance due to the canonical entropy of scientific reasoning, a theory is always accompanied by some dispersion of truth. Hence, all scientific progress contains a certain amount of ignorance, since there is a perpetual cycle of induction and deduction to be undertaken for verification. Innovations in particular, which generally begin with a simple reasonable sketch, are initially subject to a considerable amount of ignorance. In consequence, the acknowledgment of something unbeknown is required to get an innovation started—or at least a consciousness about the fact that one does not really know the extent of one’s knowledge or ignorance. Or, to put it inversely: Just and only with the realization that there is something unknown can the first steps be made toward finding novel things and acquiring new knowledge.

30 

 2 Science

Most pioneers in science were reportedly aware of these circumstances. For example, Socrates in Plato’s Apology was named the wisest man of his age, because he was conscious of his ignorance in things both large and small [28]. Also, Confucius stated in his Analects that knowledge is the awareness of the known as well as the unknown. In particular, an innovation must be regarding something unknown in order to actually be something new later. Only, when something additional is detected does an opportunity arise to implement an innovation. And this realization can be as much about the evolution of factual things as about the discovery of a disruption. In any case, the approach is associated with a certain risk of failure. Either the investigation of the facts turns out to be in vain or the attempt to find a new understanding turns out to be meaningless. Hence, the only things that are certain are where facts and understanding already match. As long as the facts and theories agree, no real progress is to be expected. Therefore, novelties appear either with the detection of new facts or along with the discovery of new theories. Scientifically speaking, this is the general prerequisite for the beginning of new human findings. For example, the beginning of science is often said to have taken place in 399 BC, with Socrates’ defense when he was accused of seducing the youths of Athens by his inquiries into the traditional order, which at the time was considered a kind of blasphemy. In his reply, he actually claimed a divine mandate to question the limits of human knowledge again and again, in order to prize the glory of the Creation in humbleness forever. Since that time any scientific approach needs to be accompanied with a certain degree of humility—which is also advisable for attempting to create an innovation. The Socratic method of convincing is fundamental to the beginnings of any scientific or innovative process. It begins with a questioning of statements and testimonies about a particular topic. Similar to a police interrogation or criminal case, the accusation is challenged again and again in order to throw light on new aspects of the situation. It will sooner or later become apparent when facts and arguments do not match. For the defendant this usually results in the state of aporia, literally standing for shame, embarrassment, discountenance, humiliation, confusion, pain, anguish, distress, or even suffering. As a consequence, he or she has to confess—or tries to get out of it by changing the subject—or calling a lawyer. Surprisingly, this simple method is very effective, and one needs a long training in defense to avoid its effects. But it is also an exhausting work to interrogate and testify coherently for a longer time. Recent progress in the economic sciences explain managerial mistakes through a similar kind of “shaming” accompanied with new efforts to obtain a deeper understanding. The Nobel laureate Kahneman employed in his Prospect Theory the ideas of two personal selves taking part in the thinking process: a fast heuristic one and a slow hermeneutic one, which Kahneman calls a stereotype [29]. Quick decisions are required in situations of duress; yet quiet

2.1 Elenctic 

 31

reflection is absolutely necessary in order to obtain convincing results. Obviously, the scientific method of Socrates has itself become a scientific discipline, with its own progress and merits. In the Middle Ages, Abelard introduced in 1122 the scholastic method for proving Christianity, which uses a very similar questioning procedure of sic et non—yes and no [30]. This method begins with a questioning of the rational interpretation of a biblical word, which is therefore explained according to its literal meaning or attributes in a dictionary—for example, the word “innovation” according to the thesaurus of MS Office Word includes notions of “novelty, modernism, modernization, improvement, advance and originality”. The questioning procedure continues by paraphrasing the original text with these words—for example, a book about innovations starts by repeating the fundamental statements using these other words. In the next step particular questions may be brought up in order to show discrepancies, conflicts, contradictions, or paradoxes—for example, the question whether “renaissance”, which literally means rebirth, might be a suitable aspect to describe the meaning of innovation. And finally one may sum up the findings and conclude by a generalization or limitation—for example, link the topic of innovation to all kinds of scientific truths. In fact, in his description of the scholastic process Abelard used the words “glossary”, “paraphrase”, “questioning”, and “sum”. And so it seems that this very same method of proof is being used here in writing a book about innovation. But there is still needed a matching of the theory with fact—that is, convinced readers—to transform a book like this into a real innovation. Modern quality management employs a very similar method using the 5 Whys of process innovation, which is attributed to Sakichi Toyoda, the founder of Toyota Industries in 1926, and a famous Japanese innovator. The task is to simply ask why five times, in order to improve quality and performance. However, the task is not as easy as it appears, since each why is about the previously achieved understanding. For example, the first why for nanotechnology could be simply the employment of matter with a size of less than a micron. But the second why concerns the effect of that size, which is the increase of the surface of a constant mass of matter, if the particle size is reduced. And the third why is about that surface increase and leads to the understanding that all chemical, thermal, and electrical effects are due the available surface and not to the mass. So the fourth why is about all these effects and refers to the process acceleration achieved by smaller particles. And the fifth why is about the velocity of a process, where the deeper why-reason is the concept of higher efficiency, that is, increased output by the same input. When then the reason for efficiency in technical processes is questioned, one can begin by admitting a certain degree of ignorance about economic topics—or evasively beginning by arguing the pros and cons in business—or call an expert. In any case, the process has come to an end, and the technical reason for employing nanotechnology

32 

 2 Science

is better understood. And the result may be some particular improvements, if one is aware that in the end the ultimate profound why is about process acceleration and efficiency. A comparison of chimpanzees and children revealed that one main difference in natural behavior of the two can be attributed to the human inclination to experience uneasiness, doubt, and shame, when being confronted with the unknown— whereas the chimp just quickly resigns himself to the facts. Further investigation demonstrated that chimps therefore have the advantage of a faster acknowledgment of the facts [21]. Apparently, the human ability of reasoning and slow thinking is a sort of handicap—if only quick decisions are required, for example, to obtain a reward or escape a predator. The minimum reaction period, for example, in a sprint contest, is measured at 100 milliseconds for humans, and a decision requires about 300 milliseconds, whereas chimps can decide and react in just some tenths of a millisecond. At the age of about three years, human children begin to pester with questions. And all of us who have experienced this will surely affirm that this behavior is instinctive and not learned—and that it is not easy, but laborious—and that it slows down rather than speeds up comprehension. It may be consoling to learn that this lack of presence of mind is the basic origin of human reflection, creativity, and access to innovations. Man is condemned to liberty, as the philosopher Sartre has described this ability. Yet, for the purpose of innovation it is not a question of suppressing these instincts but rather of inversely reinforcing them through suitable methods. Other research showed that decisions made by reasoning require a great deal of metabolic energy. An overall measurement shows that the human brain makes up only about 2% of a healthy human body mass, but, it consumes about 20% of the energy, whereas all the muscles used for activities make up about 30% of the body mass and consume only 24% of the energy of an average healthy individual. This means that the specific energy consumption of the brain has to be about twelve times higher than that of all the muscle activity. Recent tests have shown that it is actually the finite resource of blood sugar that sets the limit for the ability to think. When someone takes a strenuous, exhausting test, a subsequent stroop test of the mental abilities reveals significantly inferior performance if food or drink using an artificial sweetener is consumed afterwards in comparison to those eating or drinking something containing real sugar [32]. Apparently, some sort of mental exhaustion—called ego depletion—takes place in the process of thinking. But elenctic conviction is only the beginning of cognition. The advantage of slow thinking lies in a deeper understanding of the world, as Socrates argued in his apologia defense. And the situation of shameful aporia, described earlier, is only a stepping stone toward a better understanding. So he preferred to call this process maieutics—literally the technique of midwives. Like in the birth process, new knowledge or innovative ideas are born in a shame-filled and strenuous procedure. This metaphor may be equally helpful for accepting a phase of ridicule and uncertainty

2.1 Elenctic 

{}

conscious

elenctic conviction

maieutic cognition

knowledge

unconscious

traumatic oblivion

!

knowledge

therapeutic recall

–

?

shameful aporia

ignorance

ignorance

unconscious

 33

conscious

Figure 2.2: The four states of mind and the related processes of human cognition.

concerning ignorance. The purpose is not blame but rather enlightenment through comprehension. Most cases will probably only reproduce some tacit knowledge and affirm subjective biases. Several cases will establish a new merging with related topics and allow for the sharing of knowledge. Other cases will lead to new effects or solutions that were previously unknown. Only a few, rather seldom cases will detect a blank spot in the scientific or innovation agenda and may be the impetus and birth of a profound investigation. This seems to be the most promising benefit for innovation management. The whole process of elenctic conviction is not at its end with the status of cognition by maieutic enlightenment (see Figure 2.2). The average human brain disposes of other processes to obtain oblivion by trauma—literally leakage, gap, or sink. Especially during sleep—and sometimes in consequence of excessive stress—the brain removes memories and cognitive achievements that seem to be obsolete, because they are of no practical use, or might be a threat to mental health and conscious thought. This cycle sometimes needs the help of therapy—literally a service or a cure—in order to be completed, when this suppression causes mental disturbances or blockages. Then an equally strenuous and guilt-ridden cycle of conviction and rebirth may be required— sometimes followed by another round of oblivion and therapy. The respective states in this cycle can be circumscribed by distinguishing knowledge and consciousness. Initially, every objectivation in science and innovation has hidden problems to be solved, that is, things that are initially unconscious and unknown. By the process of elenctic conviction this unawareness becomes clear and leads to a shameful/guilt-ridden aporia and the admission of ignorance, that is, the state of something consciously unbeknown. But maieutic birth rewards these efforts with sudden enlightenment, that is, the state of something consciously known.

34 

 2 Science

However, traumatic oblivion suppresses this insight, that is, the state of unconscious knowledge. Then it requires some sort of therapy to restore the experienced state of ignorance, that is, the state of the unconscious unknown. Lesson 7 Innovative ideas need a transformation of unconscious ignorance into conscious knowledge!

2.2 Entelechy In a world, that has become questionable by all ways, we try to stay on course philosophizing without knowing the aim. from: Philosophical World Orientation by Karl Jaspers 1932

By the previous elenctic process a scientific instrument is granted to start a reasonably truthful innovation. Subsequently, a scientific objectivation is needed, that is, the obligation to match the obtained reasonable cause with the experience of facts. This particular step can be derived from the scientific method of Entelechy—literally meaning targeting, that is, to make it to a destination. And the destination of an innovation is always the economic reward for the provision of a real object. This process is described in a dialogue of Socrates with a student, whose name was Glaucon, an older brother to Plato [33]. Most beneficially, the student’s field of study was geometry, which, at the classical age, had the highest level of practical relevance by an academic instruction. So it is quite easy for Socrates to ask Glaucon to imagine a row or a line between the two scientific truths, that is, reason on one side and facts on the other. Apparently, this corresponds to the still employed slogan “from idea to product” for any innovation consultancy. As a first step, this line is divided into two sections: one belonging to the physical world of facts and the other to the metaphysical world of reason. And the first argument is that the section on the factual side has to be considerably shorter than the section on the reasonable side, because facts are exclusive—and underlie conservation status—whereas reason is diffusive—and undergoes an entropic increase, as has been explained previously. Nowadays, the obvious increase of reasonable understanding in comparison to a fact is visualized by a conical funnel, which seems more appropriate in regard to the size of paper sheets. And the amount of ideas required to make a single innovation is still being researched. Some estimations rate that ratio to about 1:1000. However, each evaluation has to begin with conscious ideas—maybe even scripted sketches—and it seems almost impossible to enumerate all the unsaid—maybe even unconscious—ideas that are required to generate an initially countable idea. Apparently, there is again some shameful ignorance to admit. And perhaps we have to

2.2 Entelechy 

 35

accept this respectfully as a divine miracle—and be grateful in humble abjection, like Socrates apologized. Then, in a second step, the sections are divided again, so that this explanation is also called the Analogy of the Divided Line. Still, different aspects can be considered for facts and for reason, respectively. Facts can be stated due to their momentary appearance or due to their lasting impressions. Again it is obvious, that the amount of gathered impressions is always much larger than the amount of actual appearances. Similarly, reason can be argued due to an agreed understanding or due to an individual comprehensibility. And again, the amount of comprehensibleness is obviously much larger than the amount of achieved agreements (see Figure 2.3). In modern sciences, progress is mostly understood as a line from single experiments to many data correlations that lead to complex theories that in turn offer a broad field for intelligence. Innovations usually start inversely with vague comprehensive fantasies grounded in a rough theoretical understanding that head toward a practical experience and focus on a first prototype. The overall benefit of that funnel lies in the scheduling of steps and their respective significances. Therefore, it may be helpful to paraphrase each step with many other words in order to improve its relevance for various inventive procedures. In the original text of Plato’s Glaucon dialogue the general comprehensibility is called Noesis—literally meaning notion or idea, which can perhaps also be

comprehension intelligence understanding theory appearance experiments

impressions correlated data

SCIENCE facts

Figure 2.3: The scientific funnel of cognition.

reason

36 

 2 Science

interpreted as cognition and thought. The agreed understanding is called Dianoia— literally meaning recognition and insight, which can perhaps also be translated as understanding and rationality. The lasting impressions are originally called Pistis— standing literally for reputation and memorandum and maybe respect and credit, too. And the momentary appearances are named Eikasia—literally meaning mirroring, imaging, or displaying due to sensual impacts. Thus, the innovation process can also be described as a continuous focus on early notions that lead to rationality and connection to creditable information that finally displays as sensual impacts. The order of Discourse is another adaptation of this analogy and was elaborated by Foucault around 1970 [34]. According to this approach, factual things obtain a novel signification by conscious attribution of notions, which have not been discovered before. And reciprocally, the attribution induces an alternated perception of those factual things—and by this a change is perceived in reality itself. The innovative aspect of such a discourse can be demonstrated by the change of some verbal meanings in the recent years. For instance, the “Internet” has become a linguistic reality, although being basically a mere virtual matter. But Internet services, such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, or Wikipedia, have become an institutional reality, increasingly dominating the real economy, and social and political lives, although relying just on an exchange of information. Yet, processes such as browsing, twittering, or googling reveal a real new performance by the Internet, which have considerably changed modern business and the related lifestyle, although they consist just of a soulless, automated data processing. And by new features, opportunities, and threats, a novel discursive practice has evolved—for example, cybercrimes like hacking, phishing, or identity theft—with downright true impacts, although it is all just about exchange of abstract data. Modern innovations within the frame of Internet business have become extensive in such a way that they represent the general abilities for the improvements and for the disruptions of our time. A typical innovation today consists mainly of a discourse: What kind of new business might be possible by means of cross-linked electronic data communications? Concerning this matter, a suitable and catchy name for a new project case seems to be a primary obligation in order to make it manifest—and noticeably a project team develops an own discursive practice during the evolution of a project. A particular sort of such a discourse is negotiation. And the concept of Principled Negotiation by Harvard University in 1981 took on the challenge to increase reasonably the mutual interests of the negotiating parties by appropriate wording at first, before starting to distribute the facts [35]. The merit of a negotiation consists principally of the effort, to employ manifold reasonable truths by the law of entropy, as described before. This requires slow and strenuous thinking and shameful convictions of a previous ignorance. For negotiations, too, are subjected to a mutual lack of knowledge about the interests of the respective other parties. And novel results can be principally obtained by making the unbeknown obvious.

2.2 Entelechy 

 37

In a first step, the advice for principled negotiations is to separate the people from the problem, that is, to split the disperse quantity of reasonable interests on one side from the limited availability of factual resources on the other. In a second step, the advice is to focus on interests and not on positions, that is, to investigate the ample opportunities of reasonable interests and not on the restricted perspectives of factual statements. Then, in a third step, it is advised to create options that satisfy both parties, that is, to find out novel aspects, which can be satisfied in another manner, in another moment, by shared utilization or by other compensations. Finally, in a fourth step, it is advised to insist on objective criteria—or refer to a best alternative to the negotiated agreement, abbreviated as BATNA. Obviously, these advices follow the concept of the Line Analogy for an innovation, as mentioned before. And they even include the necessity of objectivation, to avoid errors and fraud by illusions. Thus, for innovations, it is similarly advisable to distinguish between individual desires and technical problems and to focus first on these desires instead of the limitations of the existing technology. Only afterward does it seem appropriate to engineer technical possibilities, which combine both, fact and fiction. And finally, the obligation to an objective truth is to respect—or to content oneself with the state of the art. Apparently, principled negotiation is a feasible way to make an innovation, too. And a conclusion is that innovations require a sophisticated way to negotiate about reason (see Figure 2.4).

intelligent thoughts

theoretical recognition data information experimental display

INNOVATION reason

Figure 2.4: The cognitive funnel for innovations.

facts

38 

 2 Science

A fundamental error in scientific or innovation proceedings is the attempts to cut short or skip a step—or even change the sequence of the funnel. For example, when the feasibility of an idea is tested, although the idea itself is theoretically not even plausible, it represents a waste of budget, in general. And the preparation for a prototype launch is a lavish spending as well, when its feasibility has not yet been proven. In both cases the majority of resources is dispersed outside the innovation funnel and is lost forever for the purposes of targeting the objectives. What is more, it seems to be obviously quite dispensable to check afterwards the feasibility of a failed prototype, just to make sure, that the original idea had not been plausible. However, these avoidable errors happen time and again. The scientific logic of induction is also named Epagogic—literally meaning achieving. Explorations, experiments, and detections of physical objects can be seized in the framework of a theory. The epagogic conclusion is from single to general understanding. For example, an innovative material will first be checked for its properties before being employed in a new construction. And the general introduction of an innovation will first be realized by a prototype before being generally implemented by a product launch. The diffusion of an innovation is obviously rather epagogic, in general. The scientific logic of deduction is then also named Apodictic—literally meaning demonstrating. Convictions, opinions, beliefs, and ideas are subjects of metaphysical thinking and have to be objectivated. The conclusion here is from the general to a single perception. For example, an innovative product will first be tested in a prototype project before being launched in the market. And an innovative process will first be examined in a pilot scheme before being implemented in production. The projection of an innovation is therefore rather apodictic in general. Lesson 8 Innovations emerge from a sequence of innumerable intelligent thoughts, much theoretical recognition, some data information and a convincing display!

2.3 Epistemology Man has three ways of acting wisely: First, by thinking, this is the noblest way. Second, by imitating, this is the easiest way. Third, by experiencing, this is the most arduous way. from: The Analects by Confucius around 500 BC

Scientific progress and innovation can be conceived by elenctic conviction and pursued by entelechy, which appears to be noble and easy. And the combination of both might serve as a canonical guideline by which science and innovation can be

2.3 Epistemology 

 39

promoted. Yet, there is still a lack of guidance on how an innovation is scientifically determined. And the difference between a process and its results can be quite important, because the conditions of a previous creation and of a later application may be fairly different. To exemplify this, the mechanism of exaptation for a disruption may be reconsidered. In fact, the launch of a novel product, a new process, improved sales, or a disrupting organization is seldom explained by the way it was developed. In general, only the final result and its features are praised, like a new smartphone edition, a novel production machine, the latest advertisement campaign, or an innovative structure of an enterprise. If mere novelty is the requirement, it may be needless to know how it was achieved. However, before beginning any scientific or innovative project case, it would be interesting to assess the manner of ensuring to remain on the right track. This aspect of scientific progress is called Epistemology—literally standing for the logics of assessment and of confirmation. Again, it is a dialogue of Socrates that first explained the related procedure. This time the student’s name is Theaetetus, a friend of Plato, and by his qualifications a mathematician. And again, this turns out to be quite appropriate because the challenge now is the scientific verification of results. And so it is quite easy for Socrates to ask Theaetetus at the beginning how truth is defined and how it can be controlled. After some consideration Theaetetus brings forward the role of perception, that is, a sensual verification of facts. What is sensually experienced can be stated true— factually, obviously and verifiably. Thus the truth of knowledge can be simply controlled by perception. If the same perception is testified by two or more people, it can be called trustable. Perhaps, and doubts seem appropriate, if only one person testifies or the testimonies differ a lot, still, verification by perception appears convincing and holds true for any examination of a realized innovation. But Socrates questions that simple definition by resorting to his method of elenctic conviction: Why, then, should any statement hold true, when the statement itself is not a perception but only a paraphrasing of a real perception? And how can this kind of truth be verified, when it bears just on the belief that only perceived things are true? Obviously, the mere definition of truth is not perceivable but is reasonable and maybe convincing. And apparently, some things beyond human perceptions have always to be stated to be true—in order to confirm their truth. A mere generalization of facts and of experiences is not enough to comprehend verity. It always requires a hermeneutic input—some deduction from commonly agreed concepts. Furthermore, how can different perceptions be ever identical? After all, each person has an individual point of view as well as other related perceptions, which therefore depend on the distance and on the particular circumstances of the individual experience. And for a testimony each person applies their own expressions and wordings. How then can a truth be verified if eventually different languages are

40 

 2 Science

used? And what about knowledge which is perceived without senses, for example, by dreaming, by intuition, by instincts, or by some inherited genetic dispositions? The dialogue does not reveal how shameful or embarrassing these arguments were for Theaetetus. After all, he gave in—convicted and convinced—to admit that there is always some reasonable belief to take into account. And he therefore suggested accepting both criteria for the verification of truth: Besides particular perceptions, a general agreement of the premise is required to state and verify the truth. Knowledge is hence defined as a perceived notion, an observable belief, or even a reasonable perception. Any of these aspects in isolation is insufficient. Statements can be verified by controlling the coincidence of facts and of reason—as already discerned before for science in general. If an interrogation about these aspects shows discrepancies, the validity of the statement becomes doubtful. This seems more convincing than a mere perception, and it is applicable for the validation of an innovation, too. But again Socrates stokes some doubts: Can this be a sufficient ascertainment for truths? As the number of reasonable arguments can be easily increased, for example, by interpretation, individual understanding, or personal expressions, there is always a lack of confirmation. There are several opinions, which can be argued forever—for example, whether something is beautiful or ugly, really good or really bad, sincerely strong or rather weak—depending on the person who is judging or deciding. And above all, there can always be some sort of true knowledge, which is neither perceived nor believed but just reported from others, such as teachers, experts, or referees. This is apparently a novel aspect for verifications. Again Theaetetus had to resign convicted and admitted some remaining ignorance in his former concept of the definition. Nevertheless, he suggested expanding the criteria again by adding the obviously required agreement to justify the matching of perception and of belief. The truth of knowledge has to be certified by credibly agreed perceptions—or sensed in plausible accord, if you prefer to put it that way—or even justified by experienced belief. In addition to the proceedings of entelechy described before, some logical compatibility has to be procured when a statement has to be verified. And it has been probably already tacitly included in the understanding of the described process of entelechy that the consecutive steps have somehow to match logically during the advancements. However, even industrial experience often shows that in larger projects some of the limits and the restrictions of the innovation funnel are perpetually neglected, forgotten, or ignored. And this causes considerable waste of resources, labor and effort, as well as of money. More than two millennia have been passed since the Greek classics, yet no further characteristic of truth has been brought up. In 1978 the famous Austrian philosopher Popper still explained objective knowledge by the concept of Three Worlds, namely, a first world of physical objects, a second world of psychical belief, and a third world of logical justification [36].

2.3 Epistemology 

 41

Apparently, these three aspects of truth form some sort of magic triangle, which is commonly used to adjust stakeholder expectations in project management. The respective edges of such a triangle usually signify: real costs—reasonable time— matching results. That triangle allegory bears on the mechanical truss construction, where the whole structure collapses, when only one junction brakes. Thus, a project will fail—or at least disappoint the expectations of its stakeholders—when the combination of cost, time, and result is mistaken. Inversely, if cost or time has to be saved, results cannot be expected any more as before—or, if improved results are desired, higher costs and/or more time will be required. This triangle is a mandatory gateway for the success of any given project case. And it seems promising to transcribe the meaning of such a magical triangle for the purpose of innovation projects (see Figure 2.5). As for innovations, one edge of this triangle represents the constituting expectations of a physical execution for a perceivable objectivation due to the investment costs. Another edge then represents the expectation of some psychical belief for a reasonable application with regard to TTM, that is, time-to-market. And the last edge represents the expectation of general logical coherence by a justified business case as the final result. Again the “magic” of that metaphor becomes clear: Any business case with reasonable applications still requires an execution—or it will be some sort of fraud relating to the sponsors or money backers for the business; but any execution is futile without an economic business case—or it will cause bankruptcy; and the execution of a business case without sufficient application is called in innovation management a White Elephant—a very costly achievement without any apparent use. Some examples for that will be presented later on in detail when the Success Factors of an innovation project are discussed. A particular novel challenge in epistemology is the implementation of logical conclusions. And it seems somewhat strange to attribute to logics the idea of an own

justified business

in

perceptible execution

no

va

tio

n believable application

Figure 2.5: The epistemological gateway for innovations.

42 

 2 Science

“world”, since it bears on mere abstractions and is bare of substance. Within the allegory of the magic triangle this logical world is put on equal terms with objective and subjective truths, although it does not even contain an own truth. The verity of a logical conclusion is found just in the transformation of truths. An anecdote attributed to Einstein may bring more clarity: A logical conclusion can be right, even if the result is obviously wrong, when it bears on an equally wrong assumption. For example, if 2 = 1, then Einstein is the Pope. Indeed, the Pope and Einstein are different people, however, if 2 = 1 that does not matter and therefore Einstein is the Pope. The logic was derived correctly, though obviously with a false result. Now, when we accept a logical conclusion as an own scientific world, then the concluding techniques are of considerable importance. In general, the propositional calculus of logics is considered “closed”, that is, a system with just true or false and no half-truths. If that Law of Excluded Middle is employed, some features of conclusion can be stated: The first one is the direct conclusion or Modus Ponens, that is, two arguments match in their truths. If one is true and consequently the other, too, then the untruthfulness of the other concludes the untruthfulness of the former. For example, an innovation requires an execution, so if there is no execution, there is neither an innovation. This seems to be the most comprehensible and trustable logical technique. The second one is an indirect conclusion or Modus Tollens, that is, two arguments contradict each other. Either one is true and then the other is false, or the other is true and then the former false. For example, if an innovation project is required to achieve improved results, then more time and/or money is required, and if time and/ or money are saved, fewer results have to be expected. This seems to be a challenging and obstructive logical technique; in order to overcome these limits you are tempted to resort to tricks and/or imply half-truths. The third concluding technique is about a chain of arguments or Modus Barbara, that is, if one argument matches with another and that one with a further one, then the former does also match with that further. For example, if the execution of an innovation is applied and this application is economically sound, then the execution is also economically sound. This seems to be the most seductive technique, because in reality the required exclusivity of the excluded middle is not always given. For example, there may be innumerable reasonably grounded exceptions, of why that unknown status of the middle is different in the logical conclusion chain, since a complete chain is seldom provided in reality: The costs of an innovation project may increase, although the targeted application and business case would be achieved as genuinely budgeted; several supplementary compliances might have turned up or mistakes made or workers fell sick or tools were unavailable and so on and so forth. Again, as Socrates is said to have stated: How numerous are those things, which I do not have any need for. In reality, a Tetralemma is basically required—literally meaning a fourth technique. As real systems are always open to contain further, hidden or yet unknown facts

2.3 Epistemology 

 43

and/or rational arguments, “maybe” or “otherwise” have to be practically accepted. Hence, a logical conclusion should not contain “either-or” but rather a “both-and” structure. Perhaps the metaphor of the triangle is just “magic,” because it illustrates this uncommon open way in real argumentation. Sometimes we tend to conclude logically where the particular rules of conclusions are not appropriate. For example, the logic of a tetralemma can be explained by an old allegory: Which of the two men will logically bathe next if one is dirty and the other is clean? Probably the dirty one—however, he might not be inclined to bathe, therefore he is dirty. Then probably the clean one—however, he does not need to bathe, because he is already clean. Then probably neither of them—however, either of both should be next. Then probably both together—however, that would require an extraordinary coincidence; and it is doubtful that both are friends, if they differ in their appreciation of personal hygiene. Neither one, nor the other, neither none, nor both . . . evidently, a logical conclusion seems impossible in this case. A tetralemma results in the most surprising insight, that there are always open expectations to expect. Coming back to the Theaetetus’s interrogation about epistemological verification, even Socrates revealed some dissatisfaction with that triple need of confirmations to assess a truth. Since verification is achieved just by a concerted action of the three aspects, which have to be verified each one by itself, respectively, it looks suspiciously like a senseless self-affirmation. And since the statement of a truth by just a single of those aspects does not hold true enough, the general assessment is always somewhat incomplete. For, there are always innumerable arguments that can also be untrue. According to innovations, it would be similarly strange to explain a novelty just by stating a novel technology along with novel markets and a novel business concept. What indeed is novel or innovative is not explained but just those aspects that have been considered. Sometimes a commercial advertisement claims already for an innovation, when a well-known technology within an equally well-known product is offered the first time to well-known customers. In this case, just the combination of the specifications is somehow novel. And no one can call it fraudulent, since the application of reasonable words is free of charge. Therefore, some keywords—such as exclusive, modern or unique—are just catchwords to attract attention, not to describe innovations. One may easily obtain enough examples on each page in appropriate magazines or over the Internet. Anyhow, Socrates is reported to have adjourned the questioning. And, to date only three aspects of truth are known. And nobody can say what truth is. Likewise, an innovation cannot be predicted scientifically, but it always bears a certain risk of failure. And nobody can assert to know what has to be understood by the term “innovation”. As for science, however, this adjournment lasted until 1963, when Edmund Gettier III discerned some novel evidence for the statement that a verification of ignorance may be doubtful [37]. Even if something is justified and corresponds to a perception

44 

 2 Science

justification

coincidence

KNOWLEDGE perception

belief

Figure 2.6: The permanent threat of coincidence behind any epistemological knowledge.

as well as is reasonable to believe, this may be due to mere coincidence, accident, fortune, or chance. To explain this, a common setting of a detective story may be considered: If the true offender was actually not seen, yet later mistaken for someone, who has occasionally been around the crime scene, then the truth has ostensibly restored again— but notably not by a knowledge of the truth. And all verifications prove to be right, when place and time are checked, as well as a reasonable motive and seemingly justified testimonies. However, nobody had really known the truth. In such cases the spectator will be probably contended with the fate and maybe muse about divine justice, although, the result was not obtained by scientific knowledge. Such a fictional story surely takes an interesting turn, but trust has been appalled. Nothing seems to be right, not even the assessment by perception, reason and logic. Still, nothing more certain is known to us (see Figure 2.6). Innovations are achieved after various chances and many risks. And anybody who has ever participated in an innovation project can surely confirm that it is an on-and-off again and a ubiquitous coincidence whether you fail or you succeed. So, failure or success does not completely exclude each other. Just one of both, will rather not occur, and nothing at all, neither. Because it has always to be something new . . . Lesson 9 Nothing is more certain for an innovation than a believable and justified perception!

2.4 Categories Plurality should never be applied without necessity. Ontological Parsimony by William of Ockham 1287–1347

A common misunderstanding of science is that by comprehension things become simplified. Just inversely, through countless thoughts the human brain tries to understand reality, indeed [38]. Since science itself is not real but just a metaphor for reliable

2.4 Categories 

 45

knowledge, its truths are just reasonably justified and become only verifiable due to an epistemological reasoning. Therefore, science itself underlies the law of entropy with considerable diffusion potential, as previously explained. In order to work with scientific knowledge many aspects are to be considered, for example, the unconscious ignorance and its overcoming by an elenctic conviction, which leads to an experience of shameful aporia—then the achievement of conscious knowledge by obtaining a maieutic birth of a new apprehension—and then its oblivion by trauma. Furthermore, the proceedings of entelechy have to be considered by a funnel rising from appearances to impressions and later to understanding and comprehensibility. And additionally the complexity in epistemology regarding perception, belief, and justification is to be respected. Beyond that, all these aspects can be apparently described and explained by countless different words and their connections. Those who expect simplicity in science will surely be disappointed. The economic advantage of any scientific approach is that thoughts are comparably fast and cheap. In our era of informatics it becomes more and more obvious that information spurs economy—and perhaps enables a novel global prosperity, too. The ways of thinking and of imitation are noble and easy, yet experience is arduous, as Confucius has put it in his analects. And this is the economic benefit of education and studies: brainwork beats physical strength—at least on the long run. [Trust me; I am a professor—literally meaning a salesman of scientific knowledge.] Yet, all things are limited, however fast and cheap they may ever be. And information, too, is bound to some physical reality, since it depends on electrons, on molecules, or at least on photons for transport. Each consideration should come to an end, as well as all books, speeches, movies, or computer programs. Now, to link that to innovations means the following: Although the objectivation of reasonable truths is an uncertain and risky process, you have to make a start sometimes—or you will certainly never succeed. The implementation of an innovation requires an imperfect decision, eventually. Thus, the crucial question is how much thinking quota is reasonably justified with regard to the remaining imperfection. This was the original motivation why Aristotle has introduced Categories into sciences—literally standing for a complete exhibition in a market. Everything imaginable required for purchase and for subsequent activities lies there exposed for the customer. So, let us go on a shopping tour and find out what can be helpful for the purpose of scientific innovations: At first, we need a pair of truths. And such dualisms are on stock in various offerings. In Chinese Daoism it is described as yin and yang, standing for passive objects and active subjects, respectively.1 In Indian Yoga that dualism is described as prakrti and purusha, standing for physical substance and psychical spirit, respectively. In European rationalism Descartes baptized these aspects as res extensa and res

1 Numerous other significances are attributable in that theory to illustrate specific features.

46 

 2 Science

cogitans, meaning extended and cognitive things. In the age of enlightenment Leibniz then applied the French wording verités de fait and verités de raison, meaning truths of fact and reason, respectively [39]. And in German idealism Kant applied the words of observations and thoughts among others to seize the concept of dualism. Modern existentialism by Sartre distinguishes existing from essential aspects; and materialism by Marx disclaims objective being and conscious being. The Split Brain Theory of Sperry was rewarded in 1981 with the Nobel Prize for medicine and the Prospect Theory of Kahneman in 2002 with the Nobel Prize for economics—both discerning that particular dualism in the human brain. And even the Nobel Prize for physics was awarded to Heisenberg in 1932 for the particle-wave duality, that is, located objects and moving targets in quantum mechanics. Obviously, there is a rich choice of categorical dual flavors available on the scientific market. At next, we need triple confirmations for our expectations. Here, the marketplace seems copiously equipped. There are those three ways for wise actions as quoted from Confucius, namely, experience, imitation, and thinking. They can be related to the epistemological assessment by Socrates, namely, perception, belief, and justification. They are still in use within Popper’s Three World concept of physical, psychical, and logical understanding. And they are beneficial for stakeholder expectations by the magic triangle of costs, time, and results. The German philosopher Hegel created in 1807 an interlaced system of triangles within his Phenomenology of Spirit, departing from the aspects of nature, spirit, and logic. And there is a theological challenge in understanding the Christian doctrine of a Trinity of god as the native Son, the eternal Father and the Holy Spirit. Again, manifold and inspiring categorical triple offerings are found in the market. Then, we need a quadruple set of confirmations. The earliest are commonly known as earth, water, air and fire by Empedocles of the 5th century BC, which obviously become more and more volatile and intangible in that order. This corresponds reasonably well with the explained entelechy from solid appearances to affluent impressions leading to ubiquitous understanding and finally to burning comprehensibility, equally losing substance in that order. This concept of Four Elements has been subsequently widely employed, for instance by Aristotle as the concept of Four Causes, that is, a material cause as some sort of earthy substance, a formal cause as some sort of fluent design, an efficient cause as some sort of volatile potency, and a final cause as some sort of inflaming purpose. Hippocrates extended this in his analysis of human Humorism by tempers of earthly melancholic, hydrous phlegmatic, aerial sanguine, and flamy choleric. In medieval times these attributes were equally assigned to spiritual beings like earthly gnomes, hydrous undines, aerial sylphs, and flamy salamanders. More scientific seems the Essay Concerning Human Understanding by Locke in 1690, where he explains the evolution of ideas in four stages, namely, from the simple perception of things to the acknowledgment of their substance then to their connecting relations and finally to their various modes. Accordingly, in 1913, the psychiatrist Jung introduced a renowned concept of Psychological Complexity

2.4 Categories 

 47

by the mutual interference of simple perceptions, acknowledged memories, related thoughts, and modified emotions. The orders of Discourse by Foucault in 1970 and the Principled Negotiation by Harvard University in 1981 have been previously explained and may be completed by the Four-Sides-Model of communication by Schulz von Thun in 1981, which consist of factual information, informal self-revelation, corresponding relationship, and general appeal. Again, even modern physics contains quadruple settings, like the basic forces due to earthly gravity, electromechanical fluxes, strong relations, and weak modes of nuclear bonding. Once more, these quadruple categories in the scientific market seem to be quite saturated. But, there are scientific categories with multiple characteristics. For instance the International System of Units contains since 1971 seven elementary metrics, that is, meter, kilogram, second, kelvin, ampere, candela, and mole in order to measure the extension, mass, time, temperature, charge, light, and substance, respectively. An octet of aspects is applied not only in the concept of I Ching in Daoism but also in the Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism. And the number six has a particular meaning in mathematics as the smallest Perfect Number, which is equal to the sum of its divisors 6 = 1 + 2 + 3, as well as the regular Hexagon as the largest polygon to tile a plane without any gaps or intersections. There are even two different concepts of infinity in mathematics: Infinitely countable sets like integers, which are infinite but still theoretically countable one after the other, and uncountable infinities as explained by Cantor in 1874, which contain numbers without any countability, like the square root of two or the circle’s number pi. Hence, scientifically there are not only numerous alternatives for categorical settings but also settings with innumerable categories. Reluctant scientist may thereby see an insurmountable hindrance to succeed. But entrepreneurial innovators will thereby see an eternal chance to proceed. In his script Organon Aristotle sets up ten categories, which he subsequently employed in different specifications, however. Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason adopts the idea of categories but specifies a setting of four classes of judgments, each with three categories. The resulting twelve categories for reason are: A universal, a particular, or just a single quantity of the judgments—then an affirmative, a negative, or even a limited quality of the judgments—further a general, a probable, or an exclusive relation of the judgments—and finally an ambiguous, a specific, or irrefutable modality of the judgments. And it is advisable to refer to these categories, for instance, to judge the chances of an innovation project.2 Scientifically, this opulence of categories may appear somehow random and maybe confusing. It becomes never assured, if any systematic approach contains all of the categories required. And it is equally uncertain, if some categories are already included and just result from a joint cooperation of some others. Unfortunately, the

2 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular approach. For more details, please refer to the respective literature.

48 

 2 Science

former discussion of epistemological truth showed that there is never a reliable clearness in any scientific system. What can be provided, altogether, is the essay to define a possibly complete system without interference. This is the purpose of categories. Hence, a typical task for students in industrial engineering is the elaboration of a plausible setting of categories for the innovation of products, processes, sales, or organization. In general, they just list their observations, gathered experience, related considerations, and best assumptions and then try to categorize them. This proceeding seems absolutely appropriate, if you do not know better. But a skilled, taught, instructed, and experienced bachelor or master of engineering should know better. At least for graduation, the sophisticated art and reasoning of skilled mankind can be expected. The first default is usually a disregard of the dualism in science, either by just limiting a study to facts or by rambling about long-winded assumptions. In particular the transfer of theoretical considerations to objective facts is a challenge for many [40]. The next usual omission is the quest for the unknown. Whether this is too shameful or too exhausting for the students is hard to say, however, many prefer to stay close to the demands and make just poor efforts for a deeper understanding. The Dunning-Kruger effect concerns the hindsight bias of obviously unskilled people to realize their inabilities [41]. In the related studies it turned out that it requires a certain skillfulness to estimate one’s own skills. Thus, the more unskilled you are, the more you ignore your lack of understanding. Therefore, the first task in education is always an instruction about perseverance in self-doubts and the insistence of scrutinizing one’s own confidence—without getting personal, for sure. In order to achieve the merits of inspiring insights, each one has to learn how to pass the shameful state of ignorance. Most interestingly, some students frankly admit to be just good in ideation or, contrariwise, they prefer to stay at the obvious. So, the readiness for arduous mental work is an urgent as well as an indispensable target in education. Then, if you like to follow rules, it becomes somewhat easier. However, it is the privilege of youth to take it easy and skip guidelines—if not prevented to do so. And it is a pity, how often very promising scientific approaches—with apparent deepened understanding and balanced considerations of facts and reason—finally do not perform well because the student urges prematurely for some destination and thereby skips some steps of sufficient comprehension, theoretical research, feasibility investigations, or even prototypic implementations. Such slips and oversights are nasty yet not as expensive during an academic formation as later in the reality of professional business. Further on, the openness of an epistemological proof is very tempting for students to gamble instantaneously for best luck and stay on with mere creative thinking—instead of trying first the best scientific practice. As the overall harmonization of the three aspects is quite laborious and often frustrating, this seems somewhat

2.4 Categories 

 49

comprehensible, though not reasonably gratified. Contrariwise, the best ratings should be reserved to those who can handle complexity and are able to manage disappointments. And the justification of perception and reason counts among the most difficult tasks in science. Again, a default during instruction is much less meaningful than the impact when one carelessly fails at the commercial launch of an innovation. Finally, the general intention for academic studies can be seen in the discovery and the establishment of sound categories, for example, factors, features, characteristics, or attributes. Although it might not guarantee success, it guarantees a reduction of risks and of failures. And therefore this task is scientifically compulsory. If an innovation seems to be scientifically impossible, it does not mean that it is really and always impossible, but it just signifies that the logic of the business is incoherent with the physical execution and/or its reasonable application. Such categories for innovations are additionally helpful to become aware of different features and of expectations. In this way the progress can be tracked with more survey. Certainly, each enterprise may establish its own logics—and certainly at every moment some executive assistants are charged with such a mission. But the scientific categories have been selected by the experience of many centuries, at least, and therefore they should count as a fundament for further specifications. Sometimes the applied numbers for such specifications seem to include a particular significance or conjure even some hidden, miraculous, or secret power. Scientifically, numbers are rather a logical device for classification and not own categories by themselves. A characteristic of most scientific approaches is Evidence, that is, there are obviously predominant relations between cause and effect, which stay true, even if further relations are added later on. If evidence is provided, the impact of further relations diminishes according to a Power Law. In consequence, further relations show a relatively poor impact due to a power of magnitude. This Rule of Scale justifies the application of heuristic categories to seize a topic: If the main aspects are already included, the remainders are mostly negligible attributes. In particular, the Pareto Principle is a heuristic proof that in many cases just 20% of the possible causes are responsible for some 80% of the effects [42]. Thus, if there is some evidence for a scientific topic, it makes sense to start an investigation about its categories. If these categories cover evidently the topic in general, it may already count as being reasonable. However, there may be also no evidence, because the topic is not seized correctly, or, as the Scottish saying goes: Many a mickle makes a muckle. Then, another approach has to be made. The term “KISS-Principle” for management stands for the corresponding advice to “keep it smart and simple” also known as “keep it simply stupid”. And that paraphrase seems an appropriate abbreviation for the meaning of categories—at least, in the first way revealed here. For example, in behavioral economics it is actually contestable whether a system of categories should be elaborated by trained and skilled experts or by untrained and naïve laymen. Some comprehensive surveys showed that the expectations of experts are more affected by exceptions and by extremes, which

50 

 2 Science

are unbeknown to the laymen, but perhaps of negligible significance, too [43]. Experts seem to be appropriate for a space mission, but for the preferred color of a fashionable shirt a certain amount of laymen would be almost sufficient. As the choice of categories is always somehow subjective, the categorical procedure itself does not simply comply with the demand of objectivation. Thus so-called pragmatists prefer a spontaneously diced system of categories made up out of thin air. And they argue that any discussion about scientific approaches would be impractical and therefore wasted. They would rather develop for each enterprise and sometimes for each innovation project an own terminology to justify each decision and to decree in their proper way of management. The ensuing gaps and misses are then controlled by an equally pragmatic management, as well as hard work and additional tolerance to frustration. Even this may work—and hopefully successfully—because thoughts are free and science is always open to new ideas and inventions. Yet, scientifically sound categories—as explained—are persuasively the best way to obtain equally sound and reliable results. Lesson 10 Innovative ideas can be assessed by a plurality of categories!

3 Management Management is the art of getting three men to do three men’s work. from: The William Feather Magazine on Scientific Management 1919

Scientifically, work is a fact. It belongs to the physical observations of energy, just as heat, light, chemical, or nuclear bonding. In particular, work is the mechanical form of energy and can be due to motion, elevation, tension, friction, rotation, momentum, pressure, and many others. As a matter of fact, it underlies the law of conservation and therefore represents some exclusivity as previously explained for factual truths.1 Hence, the work of three men will always stay the work of three men. In natural science this is called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Yet, the effects of work may differ reasonably. Work may diffuse—literally meaning spread—into the other forms of energy, which are not intended. And work is dissipated—literally meaning spilled—into heat, which fundamentally can never be avoided and is therefore attributed with the own scientific term of “entropy”—literally meaning changeability. But since the property of changeability can only diminish, the negative value is in use.2 Hence, the effectiveness3 of work is always diminished by diffusion and its efficiency4 by dissipation. In natural science this is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since subjected to engineering intent and reason, the effects of energy underlie scientifically the law of entropy, as previously explained for the truth of reason. Thus, for a particular purpose of work, its effectiveness and efficiency have to be reasonably managed—literally meaning handled. The Ringelmann effect confirms that productive work equally diminishes when two or more individuals—literally meaning undividables—work on the same purpose [44]. So far it has not been settled whether this is rather due to diffusion, that is, a lack of coordination and of orientation, or rather due to dissipation, that is, a lack of cooperation and some inherent loafing. Anyhow, it is the productivity of work that needs to be reasonably handled or managed. Although management executives do not personally execute the work, they are responsible for the reason of operation. And due to the epistemological aspects in science explained earlier, they are generally in charge of the logical justification of business, too. Thus, they casually consider themselves as the “men of action”, though this is the only role they do not face, in general. But meanwhile the word management 1 However, by esoterical understanding, energy is also considered as some sort of reasonable notion. 2 It would appear somehow awkward to define a quantity that can only decrease. 3 Effectiveness is the ratio of an achieved to an intended effect, for example, to crack a nut with is sledgehammer is quite effective. 4 Efficiency is the ratio of the achieved effect to the efforts required, for example, to crack a nut with a nutcracker is more efficient.

52 

 3 Management

does not stand for business handling alone, any more, but signifies also the caste of management executives. At this point it shall be admitted that the inspiration for this book has been The Principles of Scientific Management by Taylor in 1911 [45]. This theory has become so influential that it is often referred just as Taylorism. It has helped to pacify the US job market and its emerging industries in a period of dramatic riots at the turn to the 20th century. And it is therefore considered an alternative draft to The Communist Manifesto by Marx concerning a socially acceptable way to lead the workforce in an equally successful and livable way. Consequently, it has been adopted by prominent manufacturers, such as Ford and Toyota, and thereby is also specified as Fordism and Toyotism, respectively. The concept of new duties for scientific management can still be traced in Lean Thinking as discerned by Womack and Jones in 1991 [46]. In order to exemplify this in the following, the scientific interpretation shall be retraced by branding Taylor’s four new duties in subsequent stages by the terms: skilled work, workforce, cooperation, and work division (see Figure 3.1). In fact, skilled work is required at first, or, as Taylor put it: “They develop a science for each element of a man’s work.”5 Only professional skills with regard to work guarantee a management with a certain scientific standard. This duty led in Fordism of the 1920s to increased automation of the manufacturing processes, because just a process, Scientific Management 1911 skilled work

work force

work division

cooperation

supply chain

automation

Lean Thinking 1990 value stream

value

pull

flow

New Deal

kaizen kaikaku

hoshin kanri kanban/andon

machines

poka-yoke hjidoka

chaku-chaku heijunka

Fordism 1920

Toyotism 1950

Figure 3.1: The evolution of main duties from scientific management to lean thinking. 5 Taylor (1911), p. 15.

3 Management 

 53

which is specified in detail, is also ready for automated operation. Consequently, at Toyota’s from the 1950s, the manufacturing processes were further improved to a state of autonomation, where Jidoka is called an automatic stop at process failure—and Poka-Yoke is called an engineering procedure to make processes foolproof, that is, achievable in just one right way. Then, in Lean Management the meaning of these elements of man’s work has changed completely: The superior target of a lean enterprise is to produce value and accordingly the new duty of a lean enterprise is to Specify Value. Transferring these considerations to the purpose of innovation management, the prominent duty would be a specification of its value, for example, by means of cost specification and by accounting as well as by the calculation of the net present value due to the investments required. Additionally, autonomous abortion scenarios should be elaborated and measurable criteria have to be established to stop and to exploit inadequate proceedings in the most profitable way. While the expected achievements of innovations can be somewhat dubious at the beginning, the related processes should be scientifically sound to a greater extend. As a second new duty of Taylorism, a suitable workforce is required for skilled execution, or, as Taylor put it: “They scientifically select and train, teach, and develop the workmen.”6 Thereby it is obviously recognized that every realization of work needs— besides professional skills—a driving force, too. This duty was extended in Fordism to a general introduction of machines in order to relieve the human efforts, however, sometimes also to substitute even the jobs of workmen. Yet, this eventually enhanced the humanization of work, since nowadays workplaces are mainly designed ergonomically. Consequently, these enhancements led to some production leveling at Toyota’s, where Chaku-Chaku is called a process including several steps of machining at one work station—and Heijunka is called an engineering procedure to eliminate inconstancies in workflows, that is, a harmonization of the logistics. In Lean Management this is therefore newly interpreted as the duty to establish a Value Stream. Transferring these considerations to innovation management, the new duties can be understood as a well-considered scheduling of intermediate achievements and the relation of different activities. Interruptions of the proceedings should be avoided by a timely adjustment of the different duties. And outsourcing of some duties should be envisaged if specific competences are required. In fact, the application of computer software and of electronic administration devices can be regarded as a modern form of outsourcing workforces and is commonly accepted to spur the managerial processes. As the third duty of scientific management—after all this soulless automation and mechanization of work—even Taylorism accepts that a humane accommodation is required for success, or, as Taylor put it: “They heartily cooperate with the men.”7 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid.

54 

 3 Management

In particular, the emotional statement “heartily” needs to be emphasized, here. In contrast to pure materialism, people are not just means of labor but are personalities with individual identities and basic human rights and self-determination. This duty was respected in Fordism by the implementation of a New Deal, conceding each employee a rather satisfying payment under the terms of that period. Thereby, even unskilled workers could afford the purchase of a car after reasonable efforts. This duty was adopted even by a US federal law to ensure minimum wages during the Great Depression of the 1930s. Consequently, workers at Toyota have become intensively involved by means of Management Planning, that is, a distribution of planned work by deliberate talk with all possible contributors. For example, this cooperation is enhanced by means of Andon boards, instructing all employees about the actual status of production, such as throughput, failures, accidents, and so forth. And Kanban is a scheduling indication to notify each employee about any item in the factory, although the employee may be in charge at remote places or at unusual times. The procedure of management planning is also referred as hoshin kanri involving all possible contributors in the executive decisions and making the mutual expectations transparent for everybody. In Lean Management, this management duty is branded as Flow with the imperative for everybody to bother about a smooth workflow, primarily and permanently. With innovation management, it is equally imperative to share skills, competences, and information in a most reasonable way. Informal meetings as well as formal conferences are adequate for this purpose. A suitable documentation by informal recordings as well as formal reports will surely help. However, if the aspect of cordiality is neglected, then all these means will fail. The deal for collaboration should be fairly recompensed—or any cooperation becomes merely a nuisance –particularly, when the desired goal comprises ingenious achievements for innovations. Last, but not least, in scientific management a work division between execution and management tasks is required, since they belong to different states of mind, that is, conservation of effect versus entropy of diffusion. To exemplify this humorously: A logger is seen occasionally by a passerby exerting enormous efforts to fell a tree with an axe, yet each stroke just yields a small dent. When the reflective passerby suggests sharpening the axe first for more effect, the answer is affirmative to that fact; but then, the logger revokes, because he has still the whole grove to fell that very day and no preparatory time to lose. Therefore, work division seems indispensable, although in some contrast to cooperation, or, as Taylor put it: “They almost equal division of the work and the responsibility between the management and the workmen.”8 Here, the demand for equality is to be highlighted. While this splitting of work and of responsibility for work includes some alienation and perhaps even some incapacitation, it seems indispensable to manage the complexity of operations. And this interpersonal conflict has to be balanced by 8 Ibid.

3 Management 

 55

mutual respect and by balanced parity. However, this duty led in Fordism first to mere technical improvements, for example of the assembly line or a supply chain, which enhanced the productivity tremendously. Nowadays, modern manufacturing underlies a permanent improvement by means of reengineering. And this accounts mainly for the advancement of Kaizen aka Continuous Improvement Process CIP, where all workers are dispensed from time to time from their tasks and take, occasionally, the responsibility of improvement of their operating instructions. And Kaikaku refers to an engineering process that is labeled during the introduction of a new production technology, where all workers are consciously familiarized. Therefore, it is called “lean” in management, when all work, activities, processes, and related courses are a result of a significant demand, either to comply with the required target or to readjust the assigned targets. This is called the principle of Pull. The ambiguity of innovations seems reason enough to work with appropriate respect and some modesty to one’s own capabilities as well as to the potentials of the other contributors involved. At times, it may be required to pursue the launch of an innovation without any scruples, yet, at other times it may be wise to pull the emergency brake and look out for alternatives in order to prevent the worst-case scenario. Therefore, it is necessary that someone takes responsibility, independently from the anxiety or expectations of the personal impacts. However, it is equally wise to let all coworkers participate in these proceedings. Modern management has widely diffused the responsibility to a caste of managers and their particular duties. General Management consists of the management of these managers: for example, the management of cost, supply or financing to comply with the economical aspects; the management of communication, human resources or customer service to handle the social aspects; the management of knowledge, R&D or technology to cover the technical aspects; the management of time, scheduling or milestones to cover the dynamic aspects; the management of risks, conflicts or changes in respect to critical aspects; the management of maintenance, production or energy to procure the operative aspects; the management of product, branding or the portfolio in regard to strategic aspects; the management of the environment, the IT or the program to include boundary aspects, to just name a few. Management duties have obviously become as numerous as previously the elements of work. In that way the equal division of work and of responsibility is somewhat fulfilled, even regarding the amount of the workforce required. Especially, the increasing demand for innovations seems to be a job motor for qualified jobs. A new proper job description for such managers has to be scientifically developed, according to the first duty of Taylorism. Lesson 11 Skilled work, workforce, cooperation, and work division are still the main duties of innovation management!

56 

 3 Management

3.1 Project You cannot renounce to a method, if you are going to quest the verity of things. from: Discourse of the Method by René Descartes 1637

There are just two fundamental ways to do business: One is by routines and the other is by projects. Routines are required to keep a business running—and stand literally for cleaved routes or carrier ways. After a day’s routine everything is kept running, that is, business as usual. Projects are required to raise a business—and they refer to forward castings and outlines. After a project’s accomplishment something has definitely changed, that is, extraordinary business has to be performed (see Figure 3.2). The common misunderstanding of managers is that they should either do one or the other. However, the challenging task of any management is to integrate both, that is, to ensure one of these ways without neglecting the other. This is exhausting work—which is compensated for occasionally with comfortable pay—since the directions to consider are opposing: In fact, one cannot stay and advance simultaneously, that is, neither assure stability without some conservation nor add value without the introduction of some changes. To comply with both sounds reasonably stressful, indeed. Innovation business is mainly a case of project management: An innovation is that particular result of a project that pursues an intended economic improvement or a disruption of a product, a process, the sales or the organization. The usual definitions of a project should thus be equally applicable. A generally accepted basic characteristic of a project is its target-orientation. Any project has to be strictly outlined to reach a particular goal. Advancements may be possible without any goal, for example, the lucky daydreamer may discover a fortune, that is, a pot of gold or a benevolent fairy. But this is obviously not a project, neither is it a question of work nor of management. And those achievements of work and management that are due to the steady maintenance of similar aspects are not projects but routines, like the PDCA-cycle for quality, the

business activity

business activity routine

project time

time

Figure 3.2: Routine and project as fundamental processes for business activities.

3.1 Project 

 57

DMAIC-cycle for processes, the product life cycle, or even the Kondratieff cycle for technology.9 At this point, it is imperative to stress that routines are not less worthy than projects. On the contrary, best practice studies indicate that enterprises should do about 80% of business routines and merely 20% of business projects to be successful. Routines procure a steady economic equilibrium and furnish the funding for project investments. Therefore, it is a bit perturbing if some recent business polls indicate that presently more than half of the business processes are carried out by projects. Since every project has a considerable chance to fail, this may have severe impacts on the cash flow. Hopefully, it just signifies some enthusiasm and satisfaction about the advantages of project management. Another basic characteristic of a project is its uniqueness. For example, one may consider a personal project to learn a foreign language or to acquire similar skills such as swimming, biking, or driving—once learned, never forgotten, as the saying goes. The readiness of man to learn and understand spares the effort of repetitions when exploring a new business case. Similarly, just one graduation from school, high school, college or university is usually required, and therefore unique. And the opposite of a project is a repeated confirmation or a regular reestablishment of previous achievements, such as tax declarations, salary payments or maintenance services. Certainly, the introduction of a new machine or of a new accounting system for taxes or salary has to be projected, too. But afterwards one should expect some leveling and beneficial routines for the special efforts of this implementation. Again, the rule-ofthumb advice is to standardize about 80% of the processes in order to retain sufficient time off to care about the improvement of the standard achieved. The next basic characteristic of an entrepreneurial project is its limitation. To comply with economical requirements each project case has a limited budget and—as time is money—also a limited duration. The investment plan for a new incorporation, a new product, or a novel production line, a new building, or even a new service offering like a restaurant or a consultancy –is always limited due to constraints in the available funding. If the funds are exhausted without any returns, the project has already failed. Thus, stable institutions tend to avoid projects, for instance public services, traditional clubs or even industrial “firms”—literally meaning firmly established corporations. Such institutions stand for sustained funding, for example, by taxes, fees, tolls, charges, or just by a stable market position. In particular, the problem with public projects is that often the authoritative remuneration by public funding is exploited to boost the budget permanently, since a government runs seldom out of money. Take, for example, military expenses, public airports, railways or other traffic projects like the Big Dig Boston, the Edinburgh Parliament, the Sydney Opera, the

9 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular approach. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature on project management.

58 

 3 Management

Gotthard Tunnel,10 or the Berlin Airport—just to name some examples of excessive spending. Therefore, a last basic characteristic should be mandatory for projects, yet it is often neglected: autonomy. At least, an entrepreneurial project should be autonomously organized—where the word “organization” literally stands for being at the disposal of own means and resources. An autonomous management is basically provided by an own budget and usually an own staff of managers and of workers, as well. And this enables the development of an own concept, structure, planning, and controlling, in order to pursue their very own targets. Especially, in cases where an innovation project depends on other business affairs, that is, other projects or routines, it is reasonably involved and affected by them. For instance, there may be conflicts about the urgency, when the demand is occasionally high and/or the output accidentally low. Or, there may be conflicts about convenience, when the purpose of the project disagrees with the strategy of a running business model. Therefore, in order to avoid that projects are integrated in the regular shop-floor routines, they have to be reasonably autonomous and independent. It has to be admitted that independence in general is either a relative or an illusive notion. For all things in the universe are connected somehow, as far as we know. Maybe there are things unknown, which are completely independent—and therefore they are unknown; at least, until we have connected them to our experience—but then they are no longer independent. Especially within the economical framework of an enterprise, projects always meet with some restraints from the overall business, for instance from the financial liquidity, from the strategy, or from the economic cycle. Thus the primordial duty of the project management is to achieve a certain degree of autonomy for the particular project case in connection with the other project cases and the business routines, such as sales, production, product development or administration. This paradoxical situation becomes even more obvious when we consider that projects are by definition unique undertakings yet are created within the frame of a continuous undertaking, that is, an enterprise. Project investments are furnished by the balanced economy of a sponsor, and the members of the project team expect reliable payments as well as do their suppliers do. Thus, a project team works for a unique target within a framework of routines. And the project management consists basically of the paradoxical integration of unique projects by management routines. This is the fundamental characteristic of a project case. As a consequence of this mandatory integration of a project case into the business routines, an overlapping of different managerial divisions of an enterprise can be observed. For instance, if there are divisions for sales, production, quality, product 10 Most interestingly, after excessive boost in time and costs of the Gotthard tunnel project in Switzerland, it has been declared by the Swiss national assembly as a “national duty”, that is, no longer a project.

3.1 Project 

 59

development, technology, and innovation in an enterprise, these divisions do not just manage these projects but have other autonomous projects of their own, which have to cover all these aspects themselves. For example, there may be projects about an increase in the sales as well as new sales as part of a development project; or there may be productivity projects as well as a reasonable striving for some project productivity; and quality may be enhanced by projects as well as one expects a quality of the projects; similarly, there are development projects as well as project developments, technology projects as well as a project technology required and innovation projects as well as project innovations. Scientifically, the management of projects does not represent a fact but has to be taken as a convincing reasoning about an appropriate way to proceed. Surely, the results of projects may be factual, but the pursuit of these results can merely be reasonable, because they remain unaccomplished and fictional until a project case comes to its end. In scientific consequence, a project case cannot be factorized separately but diffuses with the other duties of an enterprise. Although, the integration of projected and routine work is the basis for the expected economic growth, it is also a cause for the connection and an overlapping of management duties (see Figure 3.3). In science, this strange setting is called fractal or self-similar. And it will be, at a later stage, a challenge to set appropriate rules for such self-similar, fractal systems or cycles. However, the advantage of such self-similar systems is the opportunity of aggregation. For example, the projects of an enterprise can be compiled in a portfolio, that is, usually a survey of all the projects in work. This portfolio can then be managed on a superior level, for example, to adjust each of them “top-down” or to merge all of them “bottom-up” for some strategic purposes. Moreover, several projects of an enterprise can be bundled to form multiple projects, that is, usually a combination of projects with almost identical requirements, such as the implementation of new software at different divisions or enterprises. Although each division or enterprise may have its particular project requirements, it is basically wiser to use the experience of the specialists for the same software in different divisions.

sales

innovation

product development

project quality

technology

production Figure 3.3: Project management overlapping with other management tasks.

60 

 3 Management

And, for a further example, selected projects of an enterprise can be reasonably assorted as a program, that is, a collection of projects serving a particular purpose. Such programs are usually projects on a higher level or megaprojects, like the NASA Apollo program between 1960 and 1975 with an overall budget of about US$  170 billion,11 or the US Nuclear Weapon program between 1940 and 1998 with a total budget of about US$ 5.5 trillion [47]. Obviously, such programs are extended in cost and time to such an extent that they do not appear as projects anymore but as continuous enterprises. Many people are normally surprised when finally all work activities of such a program came to an end. Innovation projects are extraordinary because they comprise an outstanding risk of failure. As compared to other projects in the framework of usual business, the potential threats for innovations are unknown and thus accompanied by higher uncertainties. Something is new only when it contains unknown things. The more radical or disruptive an innovation is the higher are the entrepreneurial risks to be faced. Lesson 12 Innovation management is project management with special intentions!

3.1.1 Culture You can do, what you will yourself to do, but you can, at any given moment of your life, will yourself just to something special, and by all means nothing else, than this one alone. On the Freedom of Will by Arthur Schopenhauer 1839

It is commonly accepted that culture is a prerequisite for any innovative approach. In its literal meaning culture is genuinely man-made and stands originally for agriculture, that is, the reclamation of land, the plowing, seeding, manuring, and fostering. In that meaning, culture represents a contrast to nature, where the products are native, that is, innate, endemic, and created by the land alone. Accordingly, all nonnatural products have to be deliberately cultivated. And apparently, there is a basic connection between intentionally pursued innovations and the human culture, in general. In particular, culture is required to initiate an intention, which exceeds the mere fulfillment of needs and desires, because the origin of any willful intent is always

11 2009 NASA Cost Symposium. Cost Analysis Division.

3.1 Project 

 61

obscure. This is mainly due to the ability of culture to overcome personal ignorance and to generate a collective willpower. Through culture different mindsets can be shared, that is, communicated, harmonized, concerted, and accumulated. Since innovations do not happen naturally, but by deliberate work, it seems clear that a suitably well cultivated environment is required to make them become real. And it needs equally a set of cultivating laborers to farm an innovation on the fields of the industrialization and its respective technologies. Scientifically, the starting point for an innovation culture bears on the elenctic method, as previously described. And it becomes evident that cultivation is required in order to make the inherent interrogation and the related questioning, the selfdoubts, and the shame somehow bearable for the participants. Considering, that in order to give birth to some new knowledge, one has to pass by a shameful conviction of hitherto ignorance, a culture of appeasement appears to be quite helpful. Since any project case has to start with unknown propositions—that is, the assertions of things, which have to be otherwise than they are actually—a culture seems to be obligatory in order to smooth out the permanent shame of that exposure. And stakeholders of an innovation project need, in particular, a culture of trust, because there is never a factual proof of success for any project case at the beginning. Only things already in existence are trustable. And indeed, in many hopefully projected cases it just turns finally out, that things have to stay just what they have been ever before, if you consider plans for abiding universal peace, wealth, or perhaps reliable weather forecasting, for instance. Thus, a culture of trust, faith, and confidence is an obligation at the very beginning. The basic cultural requirement for innovation management can be attributed to communication—literally standing for holding tightly together, for instance in a community, by the Holy Communion, or by commuting between municipalities. Each application of the word “commune” stands for an expression of the human efforts toward some coherence and collaboration. In particular, communication culture represents a process where unconscious disagreements and hidden discrepancies become known. Any joint action initially starts with a set of shared views and individual distinctions. As to the culture of communications, Luft and Ingham introduced in 1955 the Johari Window to discern four facets of communication [48]: An open or public facet, which is equally known to everybody; a hidden facet, which is just known to oneself but not to others; a blind facet, which is unknown to oneself but known to others; and an unknown facet to everybody. Through communication it should be possible to clear the hidden and the blind facets at the beginning of an innovation project—and perhaps indicate and bring into awareness the presence of a further unknown facet. This represents some sort of preparatory cultivation for an innovation. Another communication culture is required as given in the Socratic Difference in mutual agreement, that is, discrepancies between the things meant by a speaker and the things understood by an audience. There is always a difference between what is

62 

 3 Management

meant and what is said, for instance due to a lack of appropriate words. And there is also generally a difference in what is said and what is heard, for instance due to bad acoustics. Further, there can be a difference in what is heard and what is understood, for instance due to some incompatible wording. This makes a total of three accumulating differences in communication (see Figure 3.4). In order to effectively communicate in a monologue, one can try to minimize that overall difference by varied repetition of the things meant by the use of numerous words. Some psychometric measurements suggest that merely 6–8 bits of information can be recorded per minute—whereas about 60–80 bits per minute can be expressed—there is always time enough to repeat almost 10 times each and every notion in different ways. Yet, the easier way to communicate is through a dialogue, where things are repeated as they were previously understood. Through such feedback the Socratic Difference can be reduced and consequently an agreement can be achieved. This represents another cultivation process to aid innovation. But communication is not limited to an exchange of words. Meanwhile it is commonly accepted that the major part of information is exchanged by nonverbal communication, for example, body language: by gesture, posture, pace, and facial expressions—and even behavioral language: acting and touching. Agreements or discrepancies become more obvious in nonverbal inconsistencies than by spoken or written contradictions. It is generally accepted nowadays that the human cognitive ability is not necessarily an evolutionary result of improved understanding of the world but is an improved understanding of each other to arrive at an agreement [49].

mean

dialogue / feedback

∆ say 60–80 bit/min

∆ hear

∆ monologue

∆

understand 6–8 bit/min

Figure 3.4: The culture of communication to overcome the Socratic difference.

3.1 Project 

 63

Nonverbal communication too can be considered an important tool to cultivate innovations. In particular, for project communication some features have been cultivated to improve the process of conviction and of documentation. For instance, a frequent recording is advisable, for example, daily, weekly, or at least monthly, to bypass the unconscious process of oblivion. And a regular review is implemented, for example, monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or at least annually, to check deviations between the projected and the achieved progress. Further, a casual audit is helpful, for example, once or twice in a project, to reflect about the methods employed and about the auxiliary means for project management. And usually a comprehensive report is commissioned at the end of a project case, to collect and to discuss the events and the achievements. All these seem equally appropriate in the process of incubating an innovation culture. But communication is not the only aspect that has to be cultivated for an innovation. Since management is always some sort of controlled activity, it is subjected to responsibility and leadership. In particular, the requirement to pursue a target under the restrictions of time and money makes it necessary to prepare decisions and to coordinate the respective activities. The principal version of such management directives is called Management by Results and consists simply of a controlling activity, whether the tasks ordered are elaborated, evaluated, or accomplished. For instance, as rumor has it, Thomas Edison used to lock his project team in a laboratory as long as required, in order to produce the desired result—sometimes even for several days. With increasing complexity of project cases, this proved to be inappropriate, and in the 1950s Drucker suggested a Management by Objectives, where all members of a project team are requested to state their proposals about their individual contributions to a given project case [50]. Although this directive requires more counseling and considerable negotiation, it has become the usual standard for project management directives nowadays. Apparently, it liberates more work, when people are respectfully integrated in a project case, than it requires work for that particular integration of mutual agreement. A special enhancement here is the Management Planning, also known as hoshin kanri, already mentioned earlier as an achievement of Toyotism. By this directive the task to distribute the workload is delegated to the workers, and it requires a long process of interpersonal interrogations, convictions, discourses, and negotiations. Sometimes, teams are inept at such procedures due to a lack of team culture, and an additional team development process is needed to kick-start the process. Furthermore, there may also be mixed proceedings, called Management by Exceptions or Management by Delegation. It simply indicates a splitting of the responsibilities and a partly delegation to the team, whereas the general directive stays with the management executives.

64 

 3 Management

As for the impact of these management directives on innovation projects, all four aspects have their particular advantages and disadvantages. For instance, if the premise is clear, for example, known, simple, constant, and comprehensive, management by results will likely produce the desired outcomes unbeatably in a quick and cost-effective manner. However, if the premise is sketchy and unsteady, management by objectives will be a better choice and will bring in some flexibility. If the premise seems rather complex, management planning may be the best choice. And, if everything appears somewhat fuzzy, diffuse, and basically unknown, one should perhaps resort to management by exceptions and delegation. According to the classification of innovations as radical, incremental, or disruptive, a matching choice of management directives is recommended [51]. “Structure follows strategy” is a mnemonic summary of Chandler’s work about the evolution of the American industry [52]. It contains the argument that a given strategy manifests in some sort of a compulsory structure. And this coincidence of strategy and structure is recognizable as a certain industrial culture. For example, a sociological leadership model is that of a hunting team, where all members are subjected to the strict orders of a chief, who qualifies as the most experienced or by his outstanding physical strength. As all prey animals have a particular capacity to escape or fight the human hunter, teamwork provides a higher chance to succeed. The structure of such a society is therefore a Line Organization, where each task is subdivided to smaller subtasks with a unique order of command. For a project case, this subdivision is made in a so-called Work Breakdown Structure until a level of Work Packages is achieved. These work packages can be fulfilled independently according to an arbitrary list of activities. This structure brings clarity to the whole operational work. And it is suitable for management by results. If the work packages are further attributed by their expected duration and relations to the other work packages, a Process Organization can be derived, too. Yet, it is rather advisable to improve the project schedule by a consulting with the workers responsible for the execution of the work package. By a suitable restructuring, the work can be completed in parallel shifts with minimum intersections or gaps. This ensures everyone’s participation and their involvement in learning their responsibilities. This structure is obviously somewhat coherent with management by objectives. However, for projects with higher complexity, the sociological leadership model is that of a family team, where all members have various tasks within a household. A certain compassionate sympathy is expected in order to take personal responsibilities as well as to stand back in line, if necessary, for example, for daily tasks such as cooking, cleaning, child care and provision. The structure of such a society is a Matrix Organization, where each task has several impacts on some other tasks. A clear splitting of tasks and of work seems to be impossible, and all work has to orientate itself to the whole project and its actual state. Thus all activities have to cope with several requirements. In consequence, the work may become over-determined by a matrix structure, which may be the origin of permanent and time-consuming discussions.

3.1 Project 

 65

Occasionally, this may lead to a high stress levels with reduced output and subsequently to burnout syndromes. However, if the project case is rather complex, this may be essentially the best way to proceed. This structure corresponds to the directive of management planning. The scheduling of the processes for such complex projects can be done through the Learning Organization, that is, a permanent interaction and joint exploration of the ways to proceed. Such an organization suspends all obligations for command under the actual needs to comply with. This is obviously only appropriate when the project case is diffuse, sketchy, unsteady, and fuzzy. And this structure seems to be related to some sort of management by exceptions and delegation. This case is quite often found, especially in innovation projects. For the purpose of organizational learning, the four duties of Taylorism have been adopted and reassessed by Senge [53]. Again the aspects of skilled work, workforce, cooperation, and work division have been revised and described in a suitable way.12 Personal Mastery is circumscribed by skilled work within a project team, when tasks and duties are of higher complexity. Especially in innovation projects initially the exact nature of competences required for the work ahead is largely unsettled. It is though imperative that during the subsequent phases of the project all the skills needed are covered by the project team. Fortunately, there is the human tendency to stretch their performance tremendously if the necessity arises. The Pygmalion Effect is named after a legendary king of Cyprus in Greek mythology, who is said to have sculpted a female statue of such beauty and perfection that he fell in unfathomable love with it, until his lovesickness was answered by the gods who conceded it life with the name of Galathea. This evocation of a notion to life was adopted in 1966 by Rosenthal and Jacobson, when they published a study about education, where selected pupils increased their performances remarkably if just the teacher was told to expect this [54]. Notably, there was no information given to the respective pupils or to their classmates, and no other enhancing support was given—just the empowering assignment of the teacher was sufficient to produce the effect. Inversely, it is commonly known that a permanent assignment of defeat will generally result in receding performances by the victims, for example, by mobbing, bullying, or agitation. Therefore, it is highly recommended to trust in the particular capabilities of the team members to cope with the required tasks. Innovation projects, especially, depend on the effect of the required talents, skills, and competences. Mental Models is circumscribed by the particular trait of the workforce in a learning organization to focus individual interests on the common project case. Innovation projects often produce novel requests without any preceding patterns.

12 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to the particular approach on innovations. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

66 

 3 Management

Consequently, there is no managerial experience available, neither about the tasks to be organized nor about how to execute them. Therefore, a collective model of mutual understanding is required to harmonize the particular functions in a given situation. Again, it is the tendency of human beings to engage in and settle with collective challenges. Already Aristotle had discerned the human race as a Zoon Politikon, that is, a species of community. Nowadays, sociological studies suggest that the concept of an isolated individual is never appropriate. When subjected to isolation, people will experience substituting hallucinations, that is, a community is imagined and attributed to the available animals or even things, like “Wilson the Volleyball” in the film Cast Away. On the other hand, a community can emerge victorious, which is quite often the subject of success stories in movies where hopeless teams succeed on the basis of a peculiar team spirit. Therefore, outstanding performances can be expected from a project team with a sustaining mental model. Especially innovation projects bear out the effect of mutual sympathies and of volunteered participations, which enable surprising novelties on occasion. System Thinking circumscribes the management duty of hearty cooperation in learning organizations. It further demands recognition of the contributions of fellow members of a project team in order to coordinate and support their work in an appropriate way. This will go a long way to enhance the effectiveness as well as the efficiency in collaborative work without the supervision of the superior management. When each team member takes some responsibility for the interactions, the whole system can react flexibly to new challenges, defaults, or opportunities. As no one can expect an innovation project to succeed in the generally prescribed ways of an organization, this seems to be the most influential duty for all team members: to keep a lookout beyond one’s own nose, as the saying goes. Once again, this particular feature of a human team is obtained more or less by the gratuity of nature. Although all members of a community may be quite different, distinct, and individual, a typical characteristic can usually be discerned for the whole. This particular characteristic can be discerned in a family or a tribe, as well as in a club, a city, or a nation. It is the basis of folk traditions as well as corporate identity of any enterprise. And although it cannot usually be attributed to a single member of a community, the team character remains almost the same even if a considerable amount of members leave and are replaced by others. There are institutions that have persisted in this manner for decades or even centuries. On the contrary, drastic effects can also be expected if members are suspended from their peer group, for example, depression, physically illness, or even death may occur. Obviously, people hold an inborn desire to participate and to think within a group structure. Therefore, suitable structures and responsibilities will evolve almost without particular instructions. Innovation projects, especially, benefit from this effect to advance into unknown regions.

3.1 Project 

 67

Finally, Shared Visions stands for the last management duty of ensuring an almost equal work division between execution and responsibility. This is a most challenging duty of combining the individual virtues of compatible team members. The flexibility in leadership that is required to follow the aforementioned duties is problematic, especially within the framework of an innovation project, where nobody knows the right way to go or the correct measures to take. And usually everybody has a slightly different vision in mind because of the nature of communications as explained before. Thus, a common vision is the utmost prerequisite for an innovation project that will help in focusing different interpretations and particular expectations onto a shared point of view. However, for this duty of Shared Visions no natural predisposition seems to be given for humans—and therefore a certain leadership culture is essential. Opinions may differ considerably from one person to another since everybody has an own experience and a related understanding. And even natural sciences dispose of measurable effects with no coherent logic, for example, the wave-particle dualism in physics or the concept of consciousness and unconsciousness in psychology. Facts and reason seem to be always somehow paradoxical—or fuzzy at the least—and therefore have to be cultivated by the management. On one hand, you can trust that there are always several ways to succeed at an innovation project case; on the other hand, you have to take into account that everybody has a different opinion and decide on how to proceed in the best way of the respective logic. Therefore, visions have to be cultivated in a coherent way. Innovation projects, especially, are challenged by a progressive mechanism of disintegration. As stated before, the duty of integration is the one task of a project manager that cannot be delegated. And if an organization proves to be unable to learn any more, a new structure is mandatory (see Figure 3.5). project communication

records

reviews

audits

reports

management directives

by results

by objectives

by planning

by exceptions

organizational structures

line

sequence

matrix

learning

organizational learning

personal mastery

mental models

systems thinking

shared visions

Figure 3.5: Cultural facets of project management. Lesson 13 The complexity of innovations requires a culture of flexibility!

68 

 3 Management

3.1.2 Phases It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment. from: Letter to Farkas Bolyai by Carl Friedrich Gauss 1808

According to the fourth main duty of scientific management in Taylorism, there should be an almost equal division of work and responsibility. Therefore, the entelechy of innovation projects contains not just one but two funnels, namely, one for the project work and another one for the project management. Each funnel disposes of its own phases—literally meaning stages, modes, buzzes, or constellations, like the particular zodiac sign of a period. Yet, both funnels have to comply with the shared target orientation, that is, from reasonable thoughts and recognition to factual information and display. This is a scientifically appropriate way to proceed. Starting with the management phases of an innovation project, these four stages can be itemized as a conception of reasonable thoughts, followed by a recognized organization and an informal planning, until leading to a factual controlling (see Figure 3.6).

thoughtful conception

recognized organization informal planning factual controlling

material finance work force energy charter stakeholder aim threat

milestone structure schedule resource PROJECT reason

Figure 3.6: The entelechy of project management.

facts

risk budget earned value success

3.1 Project 

 69

For instance, the project conception phase covers the underlying tasks of defining the project charter and the project stakeholders—as well as establishing the project aim and an associated project risk concept according to the potential threats. The project charter itself can further be subdivided into detailed project work packages, which itemize the originating cause of the project case. And the charter has to specify the project requirements and the project features, which represent the initial ideas for execution of the principal and the agent, respectively. Finally, all the conceptual agreements from the beginning are stated and documented in a project brief. In particular, the origin of an innovation project may be due to a novel idea, a prospective strategy, a new situation, or even just a follow-up of another project case. And the requirements of an innovation project may concern a certain business, a particular process, a specific division of the enterprise, a part of a superior program, a portfolio, or a megaproject. Then, the features of an innovation project may serve the technical, financial, sales, or organizational purposes—or even all of them together. Finally, the brief of an innovation project contains at least a catchy title with a short outline and the contact addresses as well as the revelation of special agreements. These particularities represent the usual possibilities to elaborate the charter of an innovation project.13 According to the conception of the project stakeholders, it not only comprises the manager and the team but has to include all the other people who have a stake in the project case, like the sponsors and perhaps a steering committee. In detail, all those stakeholders have their specific responsibilities: The team members account for the factual execution of work, the manager for reasonable directives, the sponsors for entrepreneurial coherence, and the steering committee members for counseling and for business support. Then, the conception of project aims can be subdivided to a certain scope with corresponding deliverables according to specific success factors, which will be explained in detail in the next section of this book. Project threats consider the probable risks with an anticipatory provision for project abortion, for critical processes, and for a corresponding management attention to the project quality. When all these premises are duly elaborated, the preliminary task of project conception can be regarded as settled and the next step inside the innovation funnel can be taken. Although it seems to be a reasonably easy task to cast a concept, it is commonly agreed that most errors and mistakes are concealed in this phase. Regarding the conical form of the innovation funnel, this becomes somewhat comprehensible since the widest ignorance of facts is found at the very beginning.

13 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular approach. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature on project management.

70 

 3 Management

The next phase of an innovation project is project organization, where the project has to be more concrete and recognizably attached to reality. Literally, an organ stands for a resource or any auxiliary mean to execute something, like a human organ to procure life functions or the organ as an instrument to produce music. Hence, the organization of a project case has to cover the provision of all the means for an appropriate execution of the project case. Again, many subdivisions can be made, leading to numerous activities to achieve, like the organization of raw material or construction components and related tools, the financing, workforce and work stations, energy, and information supply, just to name the most important ones. Most of them have been already mentioned earlier when discussing the culture of projects and explaining the structure and the necessity of organizational learning during innovation projects. These tasks along the management line for innovation projects seem more structured and determined. Nevertheless, it is scientifically still a section on the arbitrary part of the line between reason and facts and therefore still attributed with considerable ambiguity. But the funnel has started then to narrow on the way and facts become manifestly organized. When project planning starts, the cognitive division between reason and facts is overcome, eventually. The tasks that follow concern generally a strict calculation and a balancing of the premises. For a start, the Milestone Planning contains a rough setting of sub-ordinate project targets, which have to be neatly scheduled to be SMART, which stands for the mnemonic acronym: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timed. Hence, milestones can be considered as specified steps of a project case with measurable achievements within a realistic time duration. In particular, the opposing interests of the team and the management have to be combined in order to provide an undisturbed workflow and a regular interruption to check the advancements, respectively. After that, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) can be elaborated, which contains all the tasks, the work packages, and the activities of the project case. As already explained for the project culture earlier, this allows to deduce a project scheduling, where the duration of and the relations between the different activities are set. And, if further organizational means are attributed to that calculation, a resource planning can be achieved by mere spreadsheet calculation. Surprisingly, such a plan evaluation is often misprized, or, as the saying goes: Planning is invaluable, however, plans are worthless. Apparently, this proverb confuses cause and effect because the mistakes of a plan have their origin in its conception and subsequent organization; therefore seldom the spreadsheet evaluation errs. And you would otherwise not blame a right calculation when just the premises are wrong. The plan is only an outcome (which can be trusted) of the planning calculations, which has to be separated from the overall management tasks of a project. Thus, it delivers reliable factual information for a project and narrows the remaining ambiguities of an innovation funnel.

3.1 Project 

 71

The last phase of project management consists of the project controlling in order to check and manage the factual achievements on display. This controlling concerns all means of conception, organization, and planning again and may thus require as much management as the project case itself. Therefore, the question is: Who controls the controlling? To limit the controlling efforts in a reasonable way, a suitable confinement is advisable: Initially, a risk controlling of the concept is important in order to prohibit early mistakes. Then a cost controlling of the spent budget is required to enable timely readjustments. Later a controlling of the earned value serves to estimate the probable success. Finally a success controlling of the achievements focuses on the expected deliverables. In this way, controlling is not just a check of the situation but delivers factual information to help in the management of the project. This contributes to narrowing the innovation funnel to the expected results. As a consequence, a downright line of entelechy has been established (see Figure 3.7). But, what if the controlling reveals an intolerable discrepancy between facts and conception, organization or planning? Fundamentally, management belongs to the business operations of routines, which can be understood as cycles. And if such a cycle reveals errors, it can be reset, restarted, and repeated all over again. For example, if the planning has an error—which is seldom the case—you have to correct it. And if the organization contains inappropriate means—which is more frequent—you have to rearrange them. In most cases, however, some errors or mistakes are discovered at conception and the management settings have to be readjusted as a result. This is the crucial challenge for innovation projects. As management is based on routines, the successive phases form a cycle. However, the work of a project case has to follow a directed line of progressive advancements. The advantage of management cycles is that one can board anywhere in the process. But the progressive work of a project requires some sort of inauguration or kick-off for getting started. This appears easier than it really turns out to be, as it contains the inextricable antagonism of the hen and egg: You need a hen to hatch the egg that would in turn contain the hen needed to hatch an egg. Therefore, it is usually agreed to consider a

controlling efforts

risks

success

costs earned values Milestones

Figure 3.7: The entelechy of project controlling.

project schedule

72 

 3 Management

exploration

conception organization planning controlling

project management cycle

feasibility

testing

launch

project work phases Figure 3.8: Advancement of projects by work phases and management cycles.

pre-phase of invention—which will be discussed in the final chapter of this book—and start the project with that first milestone, that is, when an invention is provided. The phases of project work can be roughly divided according to the sections of entelechy of the innovation funnel, as described earlier. The phases can be summarized as follows: A primary project exploration of reasonable thoughts is followed by a study recognizing the project feasibility. Project testing is the next step in gathering facts and reliable information. Finally, settling on facts, a project launch of a prototype or a demonstration takes place (see Figure 3.8). In general, project phases are elaborated in combination with management and work activities. For example, the Stage Gate process by Cooper contains six successive gates numbered from zero to five [55]. By defining appropriate gates for the accomplished work and related stages for the required management activities a holistic approach is provided to master the complexity of innovation projects. Gate 0 concerns the discovery of an innovative idea and contains the management stage for inventive activities during a pre-phase of a project. Gate 1 deals with scoping and the stage of exploration of a project concept. Gate 2 seems partly related to the previous purpose, as it concerns the elaboration of a business case, but also contains a stage for project planning. Gate 3 is about development and therefore contains stages for organization and planning to achieve a status of feasibility. Gate 4 concerns testing and validation and contains stages of controlling factual information. And gate 5 has to do with the project launch and contains a stage of activities to prepare the marketing. Similar settings of milestones or gates are known for product or process development or quality management. As milestone numbers usually increase according to progress, quality gates are numbered inversely, that is, from the expected result to the present state. For example, the quality gate (QG) z may correspond to the milestone (MS) 1—and the QG y to the MS 2, respectively. And it seems to be quite reasonable to take a look from both sides, prospective and retrospective, in order to make hidden constraints visible and manageable. Other tools of product, process and quality management are equally convenient when they help to support an innovation project. Since they contain approved rules

3.1 Project 

 73

and standards for a methodical management of projects, they ensure certain reliability and success. For example, the Deming- or Shewhart-Cycle PDCA in quality management stands for the mnemonic acronym Plan, Do, Check, Act. The relation of this cycle to project management by conception–organization–planning–controlling becomes obvious when you consider that cycles can be entered at any point and that heuristic approaches contain a suitable mixture of management and work, that is, plan-control management activities and do-act work activities, respectively. In innovation projects it seems therefore appropriate to plan novel ideas and recognitions and check information and facts while doing explorations and feasibility studies and acting by test and launch. Indeed, a suitable interpretation of the advice for quality management is quite helpful for innovation projects, too. Another example is the DMAIC cycle of process management, standing for Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control. Again a mixture of management routines and work executions can be discerned, that is, definition, analysis, and control, on one hand, and measurement and improvement, on the other. Additionally, this process management cycle has been modified, for example, to DMAEC—where improvement is replaced by engineering—or DMADV—where improvement and control are replaced by design and verification. Presumably, an innovation may be also successful if certain processing is respected, for example, definition of an invention, measurement of related effects for feasibility, analysis to obtain organizational means and planned structures, improvement, engineering or design for development and testing, and finally control or verification for the factual launch. This seems just as well a suitable way to achieve an innovation. The general alignment of different management routines makes it somewhat appropriate to emphasize the special constraints of innovations. As products, processes and quality are management duties of the ordinary business, innovation is initially an extraordinary business. Invention ideas usually disturb the running processes thereby diminishing quality and sometimes disrupting the whole business model. Only the progressive advancements of the innovation funnel makes entrepreneurial interests manifest, by and by. It is therefore advisable to start innovation projects partly outside the usual framework of an enterprise. The innovation target is mainly a special pricing or rating for uniqueness, as explained in the first chapter of this book. In contrast, ordinary projects may serve for a large variety of entrepreneurial interests, like quality assurance, product certification or process control. Admittedly, innovations may also refer to these duties. But as unknown features are always more difficult to handle, these aspects are postponed for a while or stay relatively crude. Lesson 14 Innovation projects consist different phases for management and for work!

74 

 3 Management

3.1.3 Success The animals—other than man—live just with observations and memories, and have but little of connected notions; but mankind lives also with arts and reason. from: Metaphysics, Book 1, Part 1 by Aristotle around 350 BC

The success in science is seized epistemologically as an interaction of physical perception, psychical reason and logical justification, as described earlier. And this magic triangle can be transformed for the purpose of innovations as a framework of execution, application, and business (see Figure 3.9). Yet, these aspects are not sufficient to seize all the knowledge required, as has been explained, too. There is always the possibility of some mode of coincidence to succeed or fail. And especially innovations seem to underlie that sort of fuzzy logic since the inherent complexity of cause and effect is extraordinary. Literally, a factor is an event that produces a fact. And a success factor is therefore an event that is the cause of success, as matter of fact. However, with increasing complexity it becomes somewhat difficult to discern if an event is just influencing a fact or is really responsible for the success, as desired. For instance, if a voluntary act helps to cause the desired effect, but other acts would serve the same purpose, that act is not responsible for success in general but just influencing or stimulating it. But, as every success includes some uniqueness, you can never be sure whether this particular stimulus has been necessary under the given circumstances and is therefore once again somehow responsible to succeed. Hence, a sharp distinction between mere influences or certain factual necessities on success seems to be impossible to make. It is generally agreed that the basic ingredients for an innovation are a factual invention and a reasonable application by diffusion in the market. And the alignment with science is obvious again if one considers to conservation law for facts and the law of entropic increase for reason, as described before. Consequently, this book will explain later the diffusion of innovations by marketing as well as various invention techniques.

justified business

coincidence

INNOVATION perception execution

believable application

Figure 3.9: Magical triangle for a successful innovation.

3.1 Project 

 75

As previously explained, an invention without diffusion is vain, because there is no economic remuneration and the achievements are not viable. And inversely, diffusion without invention is villainous, because it does not offer a factual novelty. Although the goal of an innovation is economic success by diffusion, the partial success of invention comes first. For example, the steam engine was invented by Newcomen in 1712, but its larger application as a power machine was achieved by Watt in 1776. The motor carriage was invented by Benz in 1885, yet its larger application as an automobile was achieved by Peugeot in 1891—please note the obvious difference between the mounting of an engine on a carriage and the creation of a new appliance called “automobile”. Further, the modern calculation machine was invented by Zuse in 1937, but larger commercial application as an electronic computer was achieved at IBM in 1947. Further, the mobile phone was invented by Motorola in 1973, but its larger application was achieved in Japan and Scandinavia in 1980. Obviously, simultaneous achievement of invention and market diffusion is a particular challenge. According to management science discussed earlier, invention can be understood as the effectiveness of an innovation. And the diffusion in the market is reasonably a matter of efficiency. Surely, one needs always some sort of effect prior to the achievement of efficiency. For example, the introduction of hydrogen fuel cells has to face the dilemma that a diffusion of fuel cell cars requires a suitable network of hydrogen service stations, which are only economically reasonable, when a sufficient amount of fuel cell cars are running. So, it seems vain to invest in fuel cell cars when they cannot be fueled, or to decree a quota for hydrogen service stations without any appropriate cars to fuel. Please note that in the beginning of the automobile era benzene fuel was usually distributed by pharmacists until special fuel stations became economically reasonable. And inversely, although fuel cell engines were applied to motor cars by Mercedes in 1994, the world still awaits their commercial diffusion. The auxiliary implementation of fuel cells in a hybrid car is still estimated as some sort of bridging, which may be in vain and a loss if the complete transformation will be finally achieved. In this way, innovation success shows some relation to legal positivism, because the result is a matter of fact, which occurs not until being caused by an offense. The inverse of this would be a villainous system of presumed anticipation and a prosecution without any legal cause. In a similar way, an innovation manager has the primordial duty to justify the balance of technical effects for sale, and to achieve an economic efficiency on the market. Market diffusion has to respect the effects of invention, as inventions have to prove their applicability. This interdependence is often underestimated by the management. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI) the duty to integrate complementary tasks is the only one that cannot be delegated by the project manager. Or, to put it otherwise, a project manager can delegate all kind of duties in a project, like conception, organization, planning, and controlling, yet, when he or she delegates

76 

 3 Management

the integration of all these tasks within the framework of the project case, he or she will delegate his or her authority as well. The triangular gateway for the epistemology of innovations has been already explained before. Hence, a combination of physical execution and psychical belief is justified by a “third world” of apperception, that is, the logical model of a business case. For example, the success of the steam engine is not only an alignment with the effect by Newcomen 1712 and with the efficiency of Watt 1776 but also caused by the invention of contracting by Boulton 1778, that is, the introduction of a new business model for services: Machine work was not traded by the steam engine but merely through the power provided. Since machinists to operate an engine were not available at that time and this represented the highest risk of a related investment, the separation of engine and power was exactly the missing idea required to bridge this technology into a new era. Nowadays, we usually obtain power by means of an electrical network and mere plug-in adapters—without knowing which particular machine provides that power—and we do not need to buy a power engine for that. In a similar way, the era of automobiles was established not only by the invention of the motor carriage by Benz in 1885 and the improved application of automobiles by Peugeot but similarly by the business idea to decrease costs by the introduction of mass production by Ford in 1908. And the business idea of modern personal computers (PC) comes from Hewlett-Packard in 1968—neither Zuse nor IBM expected a worldwide market beyond about five computers. An innovation requires at least three ideas to succeed, namely, one for the technical execution, one for the market application and one for the business model. The imperative to consider and to work out all these three factors to succeed in an innovation can be exemplified by failed project cases. In many cases failures occur when just one factor is missing. Certainly, a missing execution is the cause for some sort of fraudulent bankruptcy. For instance, the idea of concentrated solar power by mirrors sounds reasonable in application and seems to be justified by long-lasting equipment to produce electrical energy. However, in 2011 the German enterprise Solar Millennium went bankrupt with this business case, because deposits were apparently paid by new deposits without sufficient execution of installations. The losses added up to about € 200 million and the case is still at court. In many similar cases, reasonable ideas and convincing business expectations often sell better than the physical product. Another example for this is the so-called dot.com bubble in 2003: At the turn of the millennium Internet commerce became a possibility and consequently many entrepreneurs established new business models with just an address in the World Wide Web, assigned by the Internet domain “.com”. The related shares were highly rated on the stock market. However, execution of the physical business could not be established quickly enough. The

3.1 Project 

 77

total losses just in Germany within the frame of the particular share index NEMAX in 2003 added up to some € 200 billion. Even if it is considered that some of the losses were due to an exaggeration of the stock market when the bubble burst, the dramatic effects of neglected execution for the success of innovations becomes evident. An example of a failed application of an innovation project is called a White Elephant, that is, an expensive investment in execution with a justified business case, yet expectations for market applications prove to be unreasonable later. In 2002 the German enterprise CargoLifter realized the largest cantilever hangar of the world for an airship, built for the business purpose to transport loads up to 160 metric tons by air. However, it turned out that there were not enough applications available for the calculated costs. Today, the hangar is used as an amusement park, and about € 150 million of investments are lost forever. Again, other examples can be presented where convincing business cases caused heavy investments in execution but failed in the market application. In 1999 the US Motorola Company realized its project Iridium by placing of 66 satellites into orbit to establish a business of worldwide commercial communication. However, the project failed as a balance between the communication costs and the customers’ appreciation could not be established. The total losses rose up to some US$ 5 billion.14 And finally, there are also examples for failed innovations by a missing business case, that is, in spite of accomplished execution and reasonable market expectation there are only expenses without any remuneration. A typical example is the realization of data compression by MP3 as projected and executed by the German Fraunhofer Society for advancement of applied research. Although the respective inventors were adept at presenting and explaining the achievements and market opportunities to several prominent enterprises, nobody was able to discern a suitable business idea for the commercialization of its exclusivity. Thus, the benefits were realized without appropriate licensing costs by free-riding enterprises in the emerging markets of electronic entertainment. This appears to be a particular problem of inventions executed by public institutions. Other examples of equally missed business opportunities are numerous: Rudolph Hell invented in 1956 the first practical telecopy or fax system, which was later commercialized by Xerox. Students of the RWTH Aachen University realized in 1976 the first prototype of a hybrid car, which was later commercialized by Toyota under the brand Prius. Andreas Pavel obtained in 1977 the first patent for a mobile music player, which was later commercialized by Sony under the brand Walkman. Apparently, commercialization and business ideas are sometimes as hard to get as the physical execution and reasonable applications. 14 After divestment from Motorola—as well as some US governmental support and technological advancements—the system is now apparently profitable, although not viable to maintain.

78 

 3 Management

The cause of such omissions is quite often a particular technical commitment or over-engineering. A project team of skilled engineers tends to postpone the market launch time and again because they are keen keep raising the bar of technical effectiveness. The delay appears justifiable given the reasonable intention to offer a more radical good. It is also true that sometimes an increased effectiveness goes along with a higher efficiency. And the related uniqueness promises an equally higher reward for that innovation. However, remuneration for the investments in the projected work and its management is slowed down, too. Hence, capital costs increase disproportionally and eventually the duration of exclusiveness diminishes as well. It is therefore generally advisable to increase efficiency only after a first success of the innovation effect is achieved. In consequence, the predominant duty of any innovation manager is to watch out for a possible spin-off for an innovation project. It can be extremely profitable to launch a first version of an innovation with inferior efficiency at an early maturity for a suitable peer group. The return on investment and the gained experience can be applied to launch subsequently series of improvements with more efficiency. For electronic goods this procedure is actually practiced and accepted in general, notably by an extension number after the product name, like “2.1” marking the first improvement of the second version. Obviously, that sequencing of a product launch has become a familiar label for product development and the consumers. And the prospective upgrade of a contemporary version is already conceived when the actual version is being introduced. The success factors for innovation management can be fundamentally tested with a method described already by Aristotle in four different causes: The material cause questions the qualification of the matter for success, the formal cause asks for the functional shape or structure of the application for success, the efficient cause investigates the beneficial relations of the business for success and the final cause controls all the risks and the chances of probable modalities for success. This seems a rather comprehensive checklist for the three epistemological factors plus the factor for final coincidences. A more detailed method is furnished by the 12 related categories of Kant. As previously introduced, a project case can be initially examined due to its quality with the related categories of affirmation, negation or limitation. For instance, an innovation can be checked by the quality of details affirmed, excluded, and just proved to a limited extent. Then, a project case can be also examined by its quantity with the related categories of universality, particularity, and singularity. For instance, an innovation can be checked by its quantities of universal effect, particular specification or single occurrence. Further, a project case can be examined by its relations with the categories of generality, probability, and exclusiveness. For instance, an innovation can be checked by its relations of general importance, probable impacts, and exclusive connections. Finally, a project case can be even examined by its modalities with

3.1 Project 

 79

the categories of ambiguity, specification, and irrefutability. For instance, an innovation can be checked by its modalities of ambiguous results, specific achievements or irrefutable outcomes. In this way, beneficial spin-offs from innovation projects can be regarded as some sort of voluntary coincidence. According to the explained mechanisms of epistemology, coincidence may occur and represent some sort of a hidden fourth gatekeeper of success. It can be that an innovation project succeeds or fails due to an occasional, unrecognized, and unintended compatibility by an unexpected influence. For example, the modern traffic can be simply seen as a coincidence of the idea of sophisticated road construction and pavements by McAdam in 1815, the motor carriage by Benz in 1885 and the pneumatic tire by Michelin in 1889. It is often ignored or neglected that higher traffic loads, stresses and strains at elevated velocities bear out not on cars alone, but on the interdependent system of roads, tires, and automobiles, at least. And similarly, our modern telecommunication is a result of, in almost the same manner, a line network of telephones, a coverage by transmitting stations and a suitable terminal equipment and related communication devices. It appears somewhat strange that phone boxes have been formerly necessary just to make a call, or it may surprise us that there are still remote locations without a suitable connection to the cell phone network. The postmodern society has achieved a level of technical infrastructure that allows emerging new opportunities for innovations just by the effect of the existing technology. Inversely, modern technology has become a framework and perhaps a threat equally existent as natural catastrophes have been from former times [56]. Innovations become more and more limited to the extent of the maintained technologies. For example, the increased traffic on wheels, by air or by waterways has reached a level where it is limited by progressive jams, accidents, and pollution and where there is no innovation redemption in sight. And technical commerce is increasingly affected by sustained financial crises, investment bubbles and superheated markets, which are also influenced by the expected technical achievements. Again, there seems to be no guarantee for success, even if there is a reasonable application for a justified business case by a practiced execution. The Suez Canal generated in the first year after its inauguration in 1871 a surplus of FF 2 million, which increased until 1889 to an annual profit of some FF 30 million. According to the construction expenses of FF 426 million, this corresponds to a comfortable annual rate of about 7% for its investors of the French middle class. Therefore, a similar project was started for the Panama Canal in 1881, with a similar execution for a similar application and a similar business case, as well as the same engineering managers. However, the challenges turned out to be much more difficult than expected and ended in 1889 with the bankruptcy of the respective canal society and subsequently the worst financial scandal of the 19th century, as there was no legal substance to claim. The corresponding rights could be sold only in

80 

 3 Management

1904 to the United States, which realized the construction only until 1914 but inaugurated it just after the First World War. Obviously, success does not follow a blueprint scheme. Many innovation projects try to manage the risks of failure by referring to a much higher number of success factors (see Figure 3.10). As has been explained before, an insignificant influence may turn out as a possible factor for success or for failure, too. And basically the two sorts of factors can be discerned: One to succeed the technical execution and another to succeed the economical diffusion. Virtually all innovations need a combination of some factors. For instance, sales innovations require some technical factors to succeed, for example, for an impressive stand at a trade fair. And organizational innovations may need a new technical solution for transport and logistics. The importance of each factor can be rated on an arbitrary scale and attributed to special classes of innovations. For instance, a radical innovation should dispose of extraordinary differentiating features and appropriate development efforts, as well as similar customer requirements and considerable profitability. In contrast, an incremental innovation should be characterized by high reliability and compatibility, as well as by an own marketability and related sales expectancies. A disruptive innovation requires usually a reasonable amount of patentability and synergies, as well as of entry barriers and assistant subsidies. And technological innovations rely basically on homologation and on own competences, as well as on a market development with a suitable scope of supply and services. But then, for an evaluation of a rating, there are even multiple interferences between different factors to be taken into account, like the innovation potentials, technical factors

marketing factors

•innovation potentials

•market volume

•differentiating features

•market development

•development efforts

•entry barriers

•homologation

•own marketability

•reliability

•competitive position

•sustainability

•cooperation partner

•patentability

•customer requirements

•auxiliary requirements

•scope of supply and services

•compatibility

•pricing

•own competence

•sales expectancies

•own capacity

•profitability

•synergies

•assistant subsidies

•...

•...

Figure 3.10: Arbitrary factors influencing the success of innovation projects.

3.1 Project 

 81

differentiating features and patentability, which concern similar topics. And other topics may be relevant, like occasional opportunities, curiosity or personal technical interests. Once more, the different factors have to be understood in regard to the innovation project—and subsequently to be elucidated once again. For example, high innovation potentials include often differentiating features, thus enabling a very competitive market position, but generally with considerable development efforts and homologation requirements, as well as certified proof of reliability and sustainability. This appears feasible for an enterprise only if the innovation is somewhat compatible with its own marketability, competences, and capacities. Otherwise, there should be occasional or planned opportunities for cooperation and related synergies. Therefore, a suitable market volume seems appropriate with particular entry barriers and a related market development. The scope of supply and services has to match the customer requirements and an appropriate pricing. Thereby the sales expectancies and the related profitability can be derived, leading to a balancing of the development costs with respect to assistant subsidies. A suitable comparative factor analysis for that is known under the mnemonic acronym SWOT—standing for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Thereby, each project case is subjected to a specific combination of strengths and opportunities to enhance as well as the concurrent avoidance of weaknesses and threats. It is therefore the duty of a success-oriented innovation manager to strengthen a project by the utilization of opportunities and an omission of the threats, as well as to consider related weaknesses. In particular, interdependencies can be studied in detail. Occasionally, this will help to improve the management of innovation projects. Surely, at every given moment there will be various strategy circles underway to establish an appropriate logic for innovative enterprises and their entrepreneurial success. And supposedly, complex structures with parallel and serial interdependences are elaborated by these efforts. And this work can be certainly beneficial in several ways through a novel understanding of the respective technology to reveal the hidden potentials. Therefore, to care about innovation management may be some sort of a success factor itself, where a surplus value is generated without necessarily focusing on an innovation project case. This is important, but not for the aim of this book. Lesson 15 The success of innovations is flanked by a triangle of execution, application and business; yet it is always challenged by coincidences!

82 

 3 Management

3.1.4 Promoters Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not. attributed to Protagoras by Plato in Theaetetus about 400 BC

The number of ideas to establish an innovation cannot be counted—neither the factors required to succeed nor the plurality of categories to be taken into account. For sure, a genuine conviction seems mandatory, which has to be renewed all over again and again. And uncountable ideas for management and for work have to be elaborated on the way. Further on, particular ideas for execution, application and business have to be drafted. Yet, there will always be a remaining event of coincidence to be expected for the best or for the worst. Hence, in the end it is the human factor, which makes any innovation. Or, as Carter has formulated as an Anthropic Principle [57]: “We must be prepared to take into account of the fact that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence of observers.” Please note that physical facts are the privileged departure for sciences, whereas human reason is the privileged departure for innovations. Hence, both have to bow to some objectivation, as already explained before as a scientific principle. The sketch of an innovator as an isolated genius is perhaps wishful for innovation projects. However, a set of several promoters for innovations is more realistic for that purpose. In addition to the different phases and to the various success factors, the management of innovation projects is ultimately also a question of various human competences and characters. According to the considerations of Witte [58] and Hauschildt [59], basically four different roles for promoters can be discerned (see Figure 3.11): The Innovation Master is an authority to promote an innovation against all opposition, factual as well as reasonable. For each novelty implies some destruction of the old, considerable confusion or even anxiety come along with the expected changes, which therefore endanger or even prohibit the success of an innovation

PROMOTER project role classical role mindset

master

crafter

planner

networker

sponsor

team member

manager

counselor

cynic

dogmatist

academic

skeptic

eclectic

ethereous

relativistic

pluralistic

Figure 3.11: The various roles for the promoters of innovations.

3.1 Project 

 83

project. In consequence, the master promoter has the principal duty to convince the adversary parties and/or to restrict the aversion against risks and changes to an acceptable level. The Innovation Crafter represents a functional competence according to the topic of the project case, especially in order to promote an innovation against all technical obstructions. For each novelty implies unknown mechanisms, a trained and appropriately skilled personality is needed in order to overcome the occurring problems in form and in content. Hence, the crafter promoter has the fundamental duty to contribute technical solutions and to introduce engineering knowledge in general and in particular. The Innovation Planner disposes of special proficiencies according to the management of projects and of innovations, indispensable for any methodical proceeding. A professional planning can largely reduce or even prevent detrimental impacts on a project, since each novelty contains a considerable risk to fail. Consequently, the duties of the planner promoter are somewhat more indirectly placed, because he or she contributes certain services to the organization, the structuring and the proceeding of work and of functioning with a notable impact on the solution of problem or the marketing. The Innovation Networker disposes on far-ranging contacts to all kind of other promoters, that is, other masters, crafters, planners or networkers, which becomes helpful to resolve the occurring organizational deficits in general. Such suitable networks are useful to cut short and/or to save money, since each project is limited in costs and duration. Thus, the duties of the network promoters are in counseling, because a survey of dispersed experiences and of wisdom helps to understand the framework of a new field of interests. Widespread contacts may be helpful and may provide appeasing interventions in the case of conflicts. A similar consideration of the social roles for undertakings is related to role acting in dramatics. This approach was also adopted in psychology to analyze the interaction of human behavior. Later on, the technique of Psychodrama was picked up for organizations and for the management of teams, as well. Obviously, a playful handling of human interactions in a role set facilitates the task to work out cooperation improvements. In any case, play actions are quite popular, be it for historical enactments or for electronic games. For instance, the development of a project team can resort to medieval stands in order to combine the various capabilities with the required role functions. Therein, the nobility represents the master role and the craftsmen the crafter role, while the clergy may stand for the planner role and the traders and innkeepers for the networker role. Perhaps, similar constellations have been responsible for the rare innovations in medieval times. According to project stakeholders and the related management duties similar role correlations can be established. And the manager of an innovation project should perhaps discern if and how different role aspects are covered by the project team.

84 

 3 Management

For example, the master role seems to be reasonably related to the project sponsor, which implies the skilled work to decide about the requirements, about the priorities and about the milestones. The workforce of a master is rather general, for example, the elaboration of a strategy and the survey of programs and of portfolios. And the cooperation is basically due to the project manager by an authorization of leadership. Thus the sponsor takes an entrepreneurial responsibility for the choice of the topic, its budgeting and occasionally its abortion. Consequently, the crafter role is more related to an individual project team member and the skilled work on various work packages as well as the execution of the activities in a project case. The cooperation there is mainly with the other crafters of a work package or those of other work packages. And a crafter is responsible for the skillful execution of his or her activities, for example, the job completion, the provision or an implementation. Therefore, the planner role in a project case can be better attributed to the project manager, because in general the skilled work required for this is due to managerial aspects like conception, organization, project scheduling, and controlling. However, the manager can delegate all these duties to crafters but not the duty to take care of and ensure an execution of these duties. Therefore, the workforce and the cooperation of a planner consist mainly of distribution, balancing, and integration of the management duties. And the manager is thus responsible for the correct execution of a project—although he or she may delegate the whole execution to others. Finally, the networker role seems appropriate for a member of the steering committee of a project. Thereby, the skilled work of networking contains counseling and surveillance—and the workforce of networkers consists in the proliferation of information and of contacts regarding the project case. Networkers cooperate with all imaginable stakeholders, that is, sponsors, team members, and managers, in the role of a mentor, a coach or even a mediator, if required. Thus, the responsibility of a networker lies in the procurement and in the maintenance of good personal relations and a general balancing between the works and the other related responsibilities. Again, the role setting of human characters represents an approach to manage the plurality of possible categories for an innovation. In sciences, a similar setting has already been discerned in the ancient classics. Or, to cite Sextus Empiricus of the 2nd century: When people are looking for something, the likely outcome is either that they will find it; or that they will give up the search and admit it cannot be found; or that they will carry on looking for it. [. . .] The ones who think they have found it are called “dogmatists” in the strict sense—examples being Aristotle, Epicurus, the stoics, and various others. The ones who assert that it cannot be found are the school of [Plato’s] Academy. Those who are still looking for it are the skeptics. [60]

What Sextus omitted in his comprehensive approach is obviously promoters, who were not looking for understanding but for mere existence, who were called cynics at that time.

3.1 Project 

 85

Again it may be useful to relate these personality types to the management of projects—in order to seize and to control the influences on innovations by a clear breakdown of categories. And some relation to innovation promoters and to project stakeholders seems feasible, as all these settings contain an equal number of four archetypes. The classical cynic presumes that every profound contemplation is purely human and without any practical relevance. Thus, a cynical fundamentalist restricts all his reflections to mere biological needs, just like a dog, which is literally the Greek origin of the word “cynic”. The classical protagonist of a cynic was Diogenes, sleeping in a barrel, eating whatever was available, defecating whenever and wherever the need occurred and refusing any tradition or citizenship. An anecdote recounts that Alexander the Great offered him once any favor of his power. While Diogenes was relaxing in the morning, he simply asked Alexander to stand out of the sunlight. Such cynicism seems quite appropriate for the role of a master, imperturbable and focused to comply with the very duty to promote an innovation against all resistances. Any conviction, any deeper understanding or even bias may cause a distraction and may endanger the pursuit of the goals. And sometimes you may need someone to just clear the conditions and smoothen the way to success. Especially for innovations it is sometimes advisable to watch out for the utmost simplicity in performance, for example, to construct foolproof and robust machinery, like protective switches or automatic process control devices. In contrast, the classical dogmatist appreciates sometimes a verbal comprehension even higher than reality. Thus, a dogmatic fundamentalist strives to seize the world by the right words, literally standing for a dogma. The classical protagonist of a dogmatist was Aristotle, codifying many terms, which are still applied almost unchanged across millennia and thereby founding abstract concepts for logics, geology, physics, metaphysics, biology, medicine, psychology, and philosophy by an enormous amount of dogmatic writings. However, some of his esoteric statements— literally being employed by him for doctrines—should by mentioned, like the spontaneous generation of mollusks from mud or of worms from long-standing snow. Obviously, his ambition to furnish a suitable answer for everything has been overwhelming at times. Such dogmatism seems quite appropriate for the role of a crafter, who is ready to handle, record, include, gather, seize, measure, determine, and realize all appearing problems with an appropriate means and to derive a practical solution. And sometimes you have just to follow rules, theories or maybe doctrines in order to comply with the expectations. Especially for innovations it is sometimes advisable to come back to an utmost unsophisticated pragmatism, for example, to provide sustainable and holistic solutions by resorting to natural paradigms, like cat’s eye reflectors, Velcro fasteners or lotus effect surfaces. In between the two promotion roles, the classical academic tries to establish a correlation of factual things and their understanding. Thus, an academic

86 

 3 Management

fundamentalist needs a community of like-minded people, the Academy, named after a grove near Athens as a meeting point of Plato’s scholars. And Plato can be estimated as the classical protagonist, describing the ideology of two corresponding worlds of facts and of reason, seized by man in between due to perception and to understanding. Although he himself derived detailed concepts with some practical impact, academics have generally been known in the classics to refuse any concrete application of their thinking, because—as explained before—they were conscious about the notion that epistemology stays always arbitrary and subjected to coincidences. Such academicism seems quite appropriate for the role of a planner, who relates everything to everything by means of appearances, of impressions, of understanding and of comprehension—and back again from thoughts, to recognitions and to information to display—that is, the whole entelechy to and fro. The antique Academy lasted for more than a millennium and set standards for teaching, education and formation, because sometimes it is more important to care about coherence, comprehension, and linkage in order to ensure the correct process, than to just push or pull preconceived convictions and the related skills. The academic mind cares about the overall framework and ensures the process in general. Especially for innovation projects it is sometimes advisable to explore the technological environment without instantaneous remuneration. For instance, astronautics or informatics have been for a long time a predominantly political or military aim with high expenses and no obvious remuneration; yet, they finally enabled new markets, like thermal shields or computers. Finally, the classical skeptic stands for a permanent survey, for caution and for diligence, of all factors and probable coincidences. Thus, a skeptical fundamentalist strives to withhold any opinion, statement or judgment in order to learn as much and as long as possible and obtain insight, literally being the origin for the meaning of the word “skepticism”. The classical protagonist of a skeptic was Epicurus, always concerned about even temper and equal opportunities. His garden parties were famous because even women and slaves were invited to join the discussions. Company and friendship were esteemed as the basic virtues to live an inconspicuous life with the lust of curiosity and of apprehension. Such skepticism is obviously well related to the role of a networker, who is fond of the plurality of influences and the importance of the acting individuals. The skeptic mind is always open for some new ideas and further contributors, sometimes even to an extent that the terminal aim appears being neglected. Especially for innovations, it is always recommended to collect all kinds of information, which may become helpful to succeed, for example, to establish a comprehensive project brief, to keep track of a clear storyline and to record, review, audit, and report the proceedings. Nowadays, an Internet blog or a virtual forum are themselves innovative communication platforms to work on ideas, experiences, considerations or doubts—independent from a cynical, dogmatic or academic exclusiveness.

3.1 Project 

 87

Altogether, it can be stated that promoters play not only an important role for innovations—and account for a helpful mindset for innovation projects—but that they furnish special innovative results, too. In order to enhance innovations, it seems therefore equally advisable to promote an ample cultivation of different mindsets. For instance, eclectic is a mindset to select randomly single components of other mindsets in a somewhat cynic way of pragmatic opportunism. And an eclectic innovation would perhaps be to add more and more features to a machine, like a modern car, which is not only built to drive but provide considerable comfort—or a modern computer, which is not only contrived to compute but also to be used as a game station. Then, ethereous is a mindset to summarize different mindsets under a new superior label—since ether means literally the blue sky and was estimated as the fifth classical element, where earth, water, air, and fire have their origin. Accordingly, the sum of other mindsets forms a somehow superior dogma. And an ethereous innovation can perhaps be to merge two or more features to a new product, like the modern smartphone comprising telephone, camera, media player, navigation unit, digital assistants, motion sensors, calculator, and many more. Further, relativized is a mindset in between other mindsets and therefore somehow an academic way to combine cynic, dogmatic, skeptic or even other academic mindsets. And an example for a relativized innovation may be the diversification of products, like a modern sports utility vehicle (SUV) for off-road-on-road applications or an augmented reality (AR) for virtual inputs to real perceptions. At last, a pluralistic mindset combines more and more elements of other mindsets in a skeptical manner, that is, without striving for a terminal result, just adding up suitable features. Corresponding pluralistic innovations seem to be a characteristic of our time, like the boom of innovative products due to the merging of devices for mechanics, electronics, informatics and communications, or like cyber physical systems (CPS) or technological transhumanism, as previously described. Although the aspects of these other mindsets are similar to the classical ones before, they are different in their perspective. And the distinction between an aspect and a perspective may be an essential ambiguity for innovation, too. For instance, according to the entelechy of different phases of an innovation project, there may be firstly a more eclectic mindset required to generate an arbitrary amount of ideas for conception and exploration. But subsequently, in order to achieve organization and feasibility, a more ethereous approach seems appropriate. Yet, when it comes to planning and testing, a relativized proceeding is recommended. And in the end, for launch and control, a pluralistic manner is advisable to avoid failures and take all the chances. Again, these mindsets seem rather helpful to fulfill the duties of an innovation management. A more recent approach to seize the categories of human mindsets is the concept of intelligence—literally meaning reading between the lines. And intelligence comprises the ability to discern several levels of thinking at once, for example, to combine perception, application and business to a comprehensive idea for an innovation with

88 

 3 Management

some respect to coincidences. In its extents, intelligence seems to be a unique property of mankind and is supposedly the origin of the human dominance on earth. For it requires an intelligent mindset to recognize a sharp edged stone as a possible tool for hunting with various ways of handling and individual implementations—at once. Therefore, it has been a scientific goal to measure intelligence and to establish a degree of giftedness. Around 1900 Adler introduced a comparative test to derive an Intelligence Quotient (IQ), although initially just to check the ability of children for school enrollment, when this became mandatory in France. For sure, some maturity is required to follow the abstract instructions of an education. And the IQ proved rather to be suitable for that purpose. However, in performance of adult abilities, a single factor turned out to be quite inappropriate, because the variety of roles and the related mindsets cannot be seized any more by prescribed test functions. A standardized test is incapable to discern, whether an achievement is due to previous training or to spontaneous cognition. Therefore, Gartner developed by 1983 a new concept of Multiple Intelligences, where he attributed intelligent capabilities to different categories [61]15 (see Figure 3.12):

bodily kinesthetic

al ic us

al ic

m

at

ha

m

rm

on ic

verbal

linguistic

inter-personal

l ia at

social

al

na tu ra lis tic ho lis tic

su vi sp

he

at

l ca gi lo

m

intrapersonal self-reflective

Figure 3.12: Facets of multiple intelligences for the promotion of innovations. 15 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular approach. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

3.1 Project 

 89

The kinesthetic intelligence concerns the bodily abilities of a person to move and to handle objects skillfully, like for sports and for crafts. A kinesthetic promoter of innovations may anticipate possible interactions of people and of activities, or sees options to coordinate different movements in a dynamic way. Accordingly, kinesthetic innovations may be sport equipment or vehicles, like the surfboard, the paraglider or the Segway. The spatial intelligence concerns the visual abilities of a person to show and to judge proportions, like required for design and for architecture. A spatial promoter of innovations may seize the dimensions in construction and support the configuration for a packaging. Accordingly, spatial innovations may be particular entertainment equipment or platforms, like 3-D glasses, navigational instruments or image evaluation. The linguistic intelligence concerns the verbal abilities of a person to explain and to argue convincingly, like demanded for journalists and salesmen. A linguistic promoter of innovations may find some catchy words and suitably convincing expressions to assure the plausibility and the uniqueness of a claim. Accordingly, linguistic innovations may be emoticons, where a flipped punctuation stands for feelings like joy :), or irony ;), regrets :(, or surprise :o. The harmonic intelligence concerns the musical or the rhythmical abilities of a person in order to harmonize or to coordinate appropriately, like for spectacles or for negotiations. A harmonic promoter of innovations may discern the right place at the right time with the right purpose for a successful launch of a projected result. Accordingly, harmonic innovations may be equipped with a special feeling and some verve, like the sound of a Porsche or that of a Harley-Davidson. The logical intelligence concerns the mathematical abilities of a person to transform and to justify consequentially, like expected from engineers and from information scientists. A logical promoter of innovations may generate new structures or new arrangements of the given settings in a novel logical manner. Accordingly, logical innovations may contribute to the encoding or to the decoding of confidential data in cryptographics. The intrapersonal intelligence concerns the abilities of a person for self-reflection and for abstractions, like required for philosophy and for natural sciences. An intrapersonal promoter of innovations may contribute an individual understanding of a technology with principal effects to a product or to a process. Accordingly, intrapersonal innovations may be derived from fundamental detections, like the vaccination or other medical therapies against immune deficiencies. The interpersonal intelligence concerns the social abilities of a person to sense the moods of other people and to establish relationship, for example, for psychology and for coaching. An interpersonal promoter of innovations may remark hidden feelings or stimulate occasional empathies to enable improved collaboration and some organizational learning. Interpersonal innovations may be due to possibilities of communication, like blogs or social networks.

90 

 3 Management

The naturalistic intelligence concerns the holistic abilities of a person to feel as an integrated part of a universal whole, like presumed for ecological and—hopefully—for leadership activities in politics and management. A naturalistic promoter of innovations may see the greater aims of a project case or integrate a wider range of possible impacts. Accordingly, naturalistic innovations may be about ecology, share economy or transhumanism, like renewable energy, complementary currencies or self tracking. The latter form of intelligence has been added by Gardner in 1995, and in 1999 he suggested a further “half-form” of existential intelligence concerning the spiritual and religious abilities of a person. Like all categorical approaches the final amount is somewhat arbitrary, or, as explained before, due to an 80–20 rule of imperfection by the Pareto principle. In any case, there can never be a perfect personality, who combines all the aspects of different intelligences on a superior level. Especially, some forms of intelligence imply in certain contradiction to others, like a superior intrapersonal reflection as well as an extraordinary interpersonal empathy—or an equally elevated logical as well as naturalistic intelligence. On the other hand, all people seem to be equipped with a considerable degree of all sorts of intelligence, even those dozen of mostly men, who suffer from the savant syndrome of autism. Although they exhibit an outstanding mental capacity in a particular form of intelligence, they have a rather low IQ in general. Apparently, each person disposes on a unique distribution of various intelligent abilities, in grade and in combination. This seems to make all of us somehow individual and unique. And the strength of a team is that by cooperation a larger coverage of intelligences becomes available for everybody, as even contradictory aspects may become solvable. Besides, everybody has the potential to change deliberately the personal profile of intelligence, by and by. Surely, disruptions in character and in personality are rare and not desirable at all. Yet, some plasticity can be achieved, because intelligence raises or diminishes due to steady exercise and due to an individual demand. Most people may not become outstanding in a special category but they will always be outstanding in a suitable combination of categories. Again, this is somewhat similar to innovations, since novel appearances dispose of a special characteristic of almost everything to a certain extent. The special feature of an innovation is an appropriate selection of diverse properties combined just for a unique purpose. And no innovation can be outside the known universe, because it would then be inexplicable and unintentional, like a wonder. For the economic advantage can only be achieved for things of known and feasible conditions. Finally, each innovation contributes to a slight change of abilities and of the mindsets. By and by the options become feasible due to the technological environment, and under consideration and selection of advantages and of disadvantages.

3.2 Marketing 

 91

By an intelligent adaptation for improvements—or exaptation for disruptions— the management of innovation projects will be successfully completed. Lesson 16 An innovation has to be supported by manifold mindsets!

3.2 Marketing There are two aspects on which all success of undertakings depends: The first is to determine well the purpose and the aim of activities. The second is to find the right actions for that aim; for the right means and the desired results may agree or disagree. from: Politics, book 7, chapter 13 by Aristotle about 350 BC

Innovations belong to that particular fraction of projects that have to become applied on the market in an economically viable way. The aim of an innovation project is the deliverance of a new economic good, yet with the purpose of its diffusion on the market. There are many other project cases that just aim for a technical demonstration of feasibility, for instance according to scientific, educational, military or personal purposes. But the purpose of an innovation project is a profitable rewarding on the market. Thus, the successful marketing becomes compulsory, too. It is often the cause for the failure of innovation cases that this peculiarity is neglected—or maybe it is just expected that the market is ready somehow and free markets will rule everything autonomously for the best by themselves. Consequently, it seems helpful to recognize an innovation always as some sort of program, which consists of two interlinked project cases: An engineering project to accomplish the factual invention and a marketing project to realize a reasonable economic viability. The predominant duty of an innovation manager is therefore to align two project tracks to a concerted success. Or, in regard to the quotation above: The purpose and the aim of an innovation is the establishment of a marketable novelty with an economic viability—and the actions for that aim are derived by means of project management. The managerial duties for marketing were established by Borden in 1953 as a Marketing Mix [62] and structured by McCarthy in 1960 under the acronym of 4P [63], which was reassessed in 1990 by Lauterborn to 4C [64]. As these duties are related to the public, they are sometimes also called marketing policies, too. Similar to the managerial duties for projects—that is, conception, organization, planning, and controlling—each of the P- or C-terms represents a graduated structure of tasks and of activities [10] (see Figure 3.13).

92 

 3 Management

barriers

diffusion

design

opening

innovation product

price

promotion

placement

offer assortment service liability

fixing level differentiation strategy

advertisement merchandizng sponsoring PR

logistics trades competence distribution

marketing mix Figure 3.13: The four pillars of marketing to support an innovation.

In detail, the Product Policy16 concerns the particular item produced to satisfy the demand of a customer. It depends on a distinguishable offer from an assortment of goods and services, in which a wholesaler offers a broad assembly of products and their combinations, whereas a retailer is mainly focused on variations of a few products. A brand is the distinctive tag or label for product communications, serving for recognition and for differentiation. A related service will coin the appreciation of the customer pre sale and after sale, including further liabilities, like the warranty or goodwill. The Price Policy concerns the economical viability of a business due to the appreciation of the customer. The price fixing depends on a fair margin between a cost-oriented lowest limit and a demand-oriented highest limit. The price level is the proportion of a product in regard to comparable goods by an analysis of the market basket. By price differentiation the particular conditions of sales are considered, like seasonal effects, market segmentation or buyer groups. And the price strategy is based on further desires of the customers like the packaging, a fixed price or the willingness to pay. The Promotion Policy concerns public information and communication regarding to the offer. By advertisement a broader publicity becomes informed and influenced, be it media like notifications, posters, stickers, spots or pop-ups, or be it promotions like shirts, giveaways, coupons or jingles. Merchandizing stands for concerted campaigns or other events, which stimulate a spontaneous impulse for the acquisition. In contrast, sponsoring is rather an attempt to impress a peer group and to enhance the general image of a label by public relations.

16 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular approach. For more details, please refer to the respective literature.

3.2 Marketing 

 93

Finally, Placement Policy, also known as distribution policy, concerns the path of a product to the customer. By logistics the concrete physical transport is understood, for instance through stores, outlets, shops or agencies or even home delivery. In contrast, the trade channel for acquisition is maintained by representatives, by agents or by salesmen via a consignment or franchising. Sales competence regards the qualification of the staff according to some guidance and a support to obtain appropriate customer satisfaction. And sales distribution includes an assessment of the product diffusion and a rating due to the overall market volume. Obviously, these pillars of marketing seem equally applicable for innovations. And the underlying tasks can be understood and interpreted by other wordings, like a factorization of product quality, price quantity, related promotion and the modalities of placement—or maybe a scientific entelechy of imaginable products, recognized pricing, promoted information and displayed placement. Similarly, the 4Cs can be aligned according to the customer claims for the product, the cost correlation for the pricing, the communication covering for the promotion and the convenience commensurability for the placement. And many other Ps or Cs may become added, too. Scientifically, the market belongs to the truths of reason, which is therefore subjected to the law of entropic increase and shows some dispersion potential, as previously explained. As a consequence, a permanent abundance of new considerations and affluent wordings is mandatory to keep the sales on the market running. This appears to be somewhat innovative, although without a genuine factual achievement for the required objectivation of an innovation. But a higher relevance for innovation management can be discerned by a closer look the Market Basket and the related classification of goods. Frequently, innovations do occur by a novel combination of different classes on the basis of improvements, of disruptions or of technology (see Figure 3.14).

scarce good consumer good

industrial good

abundant good

genetic code internet trade

INNOVATION

financial product

contracting material good

immaterial good

Figure 3.14: Marketing innovations by combinations of the market basket.

real good nominal good

94 

 3 Management

For instance, an innovation is generally a scarce good, which therefore has to be procured and supplied by human activities and efforts. And it appears just due to these efforts that a reasonable remuneration becomes justified. There are also abundant goods procured almost for free by nature and without any perceptible innovation reward. However, regarding the considerable efforts for the detection of a natural resource like gold claims, wide-band broadcasting radio network or the genetic code, this distinction becomes arguable. On one hand, nature represents a gifted heritage in abundance, yet, on the other hand, a newly discerned resource enables enormous advantages for appreciation, for communication or for medical treatments. And this discovery relies equally on expensive work as well as on sophisticated management according to the corresponding innovation projects. Therefore, an appropriate remuneration seems to be justified for their innovative use. Another example is the distinction between real goods with a due exchange value on one side and nominal goods with just a certificate of value on the other side. Nominal goods are generally without a sizeable innovation reward because a new certificate, like a novel banknote or a fancy pawn ticket, does not really count for a perceptible achievement. However, the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by innovations of financial products, that is, novel certificates consisting of bonds, mortgages, pawns and even other certificates, which occasionally contained further certificates and so on. Obviously, this enables some sort of value creation for nominal values, without a connection to objectivity, anymore. In such cases, the innovation reward is obtained mainly due to the effort of the marketing of those novel nominal values. A further example for market innovations is the discrimination between consumer products and industrial goods in order to the way the goods are distributed. However, through Internet stores and delivery services the traditional frontiers between retail, intermediate or wholesale trade have vanished. For an Internet trader it is not necessary any more—or important to know—whether a client orders for his business or for his personal needs, that is, business to business B2B or to customers B2C. The original equipment manufacturer (OEM) may even start an own trading platform. And the client may even use the product for an own redistribution, that is, customer to customer (C2C). Notably, disruptive sales and organizational innovations are due to the destruction of the traditional trade channels. As for a last example, a differentiation can be questioned between material and immaterial goods, like commodities and services, respectively. Although the difference appears quite clear, its comprehensive disruption is connected to a prominent achievement in innovation history. In order to make the potentials of the steam engine marketable as a power engine, Boulton invented a special way of marketing by contracting, as already explained as a success factor before. Ever since, the customer can chose to pay for immaterial power supply instead of purchasing the corresponding machine. Meanwhile, it is familiar to use an electric socket instead of a generator, a central heating network instead of an own boiler, compressed air piping

3.2 Marketing 

 95

instead of a local compressor or tap water instead of a built-in water pump. Similarly, the past years have effused a novel trend toward a share economy, where goods like mobile phones, cars, aircrafts, and even entire production plants are available by service contracts. In agreement with the scientific explanations before, any innovation is based on some sort of line allegory between factual exclusivity and reasonable abundance. Apparently, the marketing is not just a managerial field of duties for innovation projects, but may become also a source of innovations by itself. More than the marketing of innovations, an innovative marketing is possible, too. And this exhibits a considerable impact on the scientific proceedings of innovations as follows: Technology push is called the inductive way in marketing from factual feasibility to reasonable use (see Figure 3.15). An innovator executes a new product and tries to find suitable applications for a justified business case. In this way, the essential purpose is a follow-up of the real existence—to recall Sartre’s statement about the duality in sciences, which has been mentioned previously. For example, concept cars or similar novelties on other exhibitions and trade fairs serve the purpose to cause desires for new technologies and the related improvements—and to tie that to customer expectations for the other offerings. But Market pull is inversely the deductive way from reasonable demand to technical facts. The marketer conceives a new application in order to elaborate a suitable product for a comparably justified business case. That way around, the factual structure follows a reasonable strategy—to recall now Chandler’s statement about the

deduction pull

MARKETING

factual technology

objectivation

push induction Figure 3.15: Innovative ways of push by technology and pull by marketing.

reasonable market

96 

 3 Management

order in culture. For example, a market research by primary poll or secondary customer survey serves to understand the needs and the wants of the market players— and to tie these reasonable grounds to a further product development for the own innovative offerings. Lesson 17 The economic value of an innovation is generated on the market!

3.2.1 Barriers The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. from: Maxims for Revolutionists #124 by George Bernhard Shaw 1903

Innovations head for a certain exclusivity and therefore are inherently somewhat barred from the market. Hence, the marketing barriers are genuinely due to the particular intentions of an innovation project case. Furthermore, potential customers for innovations are initially not aware of the new offer, in general. Additionally, the administration authorities do not know about reliability, related permissions or hidden risks to allow a distribution. And innovators ignore the market conditions, since the business is novel, too. In total, every beginning of innovation marketing has to face an early ignorance in regard to the new offer. And the primordial task of an innovation marketer is to convert this ignorance into knowledge. Again, the scientific method of elenctic turns out to be required for getting started. Just to trust the facts is an insurmountable barrier for any innovation because everything is and stays exclusively as it is. As pure matter of fact, there is never a chance to get things become otherwise than factually stated. But to trust just the reasoning is also a considerable barrier for an innovation because mere reasoning has no substance and is therefore hard to trade. Hence, a suitable confinement is necessary in order to protect a reasonable idea from dissolution by verboseness. In consequence, the barriers for innovations do always appear as a joint matter of facts and reason, as any other topic in science. Scientifically, the line between facts and reason is divided into an “exclusive” section for facts, which is ruled by the law of conservation on one side—and on the other side a somehow “diffusive” section, which is ruled by the law of entropy. These two sections are obviously contradictory, incompatible and incommensurable with each other. Therefore, a considerable effort is necessary in order to surmount

3.2 Marketing 

 97

the unseen or hidden barriers in between. And an ingenious action to tear down the barrier between facts and reason is always required to bring an innovation to market. In particular, a marketing project needs an appropriate culture in order to handle these barriers. However, such a barrier is rather useful to separate a project case in an inner and an outer region. In that way a barrier—literally meaning a fence or a hindrance, like a bar or a barricade—is also a limit for all kind of hurly-burly changes. Within the protected framework of a project case, the exchange with the outer world becomes hindered, restrained or even completely prohibited. Consequently, project achievements are protected from outer incidents or threatening consequences. And especially an innovation project is mostly shielded from outer impacts during the time accredited. Within the cage of a project case an innovation may maturate to a stage of self-reliance, and becomes thereby fit for the outer circumstances. Barriers encase a necessary shelter for a due time of a project, without the permanent requirement of business routines to maintain an economic balance. And without a barrier, all achievements due to project work and project management would be equally accessible to competitors for free and therefore without a suitable reward by marketing in order to obtain remuneration for the expenses. Virtually nobody would then go ahead and strive for improvements. This is the reason why intellectual property rights are justified by laws, for example, through patents, protections of utility models and registered design or even just company secrets. In allegory to nature each species exists within its ecological niche, habitat or biotope. In this special environment it can survive and develop. When the barriers vanish, for instance by an exodus or due to a change in climate, a murderous selection begins. Notably, the human species subsists not just on natural circumstances but on cultural conditions, too, which clearly discerns a particular location of the earth from others. If those cultural barriers tumble, a higher risk to lose money or life occurs. But then again, a barrier is also a nuisance, because resources and expansion is limited within its fencings. Especially the introduction of novel products, processes, sales, and organizations would be considerably eased without any barriers. A free exchange of goods and of services is better to allocate wealth and prosperity, which can be subsequently invested in innovation projects. The natural evolution of species needs also certain clearance to improve and expand. The extinction of one species allows the emergence of others. A change of the living conditions is a pressure to adapt by improvement. And the history of humanity and of culture has examples, how flight or expulsion led to novel cultural achievements, eventually turning out extraordinarily advantageous. In consequence, a barrier is apparently an ambivalent issue. It stands for protection and for limitation, for opportunity and for threats. In science and in business it is

98 

 3 Management

equally necessary to respect or even to establish barriers, as it is essential to surmount or even to tear down barriers from time to time. This makes the managerial duty of a business culture somehow paradox. Especially innovations include this discrepancy, where barriers are used as a support and barriers have to be broken for an advance. The latter duty, in particular, consists of some elenctic patterns for the marketing, as follows: Factual barriers can be generally broken by hard work, for instance by the promotion of masters, of crafters, of planners and of networkers. The barring facts become surmounted by a culture of communication, of directives, of organizational structures and of organizational learning. Further, they become resolved by subsequent phases of exploration, feasibility, testing, and the launch in alignment with repeated conception, organization, planning, and controlling. And they become successful by the joint action of success factors for the technical execution, for the reasonable application and for the justified business case—with respect to an occasional coincidence. All these works are due to project cases and have been largely explained before. With these preliminary works one can already maintain the most frequent barriers of an innovation project. In an early stage the technical barriers are usually predominant, like the limits by natural laws, the availability of raw material and of tools, the compatibility of different components or even the maturity or crudeness of a technology. Later on, the organizational barriers become mostly important, like a limited knowledge or an inferior experience due to the required competences or the abilities in work and in management, the available resources, the budget and the capacity of the workers and of the staff or even the motivation and the interests of the stakeholders. Then, there are always regulative barriers to consider, like the records, reviews, audits, and reports within the project scheduling, as well as work instructions, product specifications or homologation. Yet, finally the highest barrier appears always to be the effort to reach beyond the limits of knowledge. Human understanding is limited to the extent of being compatible with the requirements of our existence—to paraphrase the Anthropic Principle, previously explained for promoters. In his psychoanalysis Freud coined the idea of an internal censor inside the human mind, which separates the existential needs of reality from the essential abilities of imagination [65]. Awake, most notions of imagination are unconsciously suppressed by that censor to allow a practical existence. Yet, in our dreams the essential purpose of life is worked out. To a certain extent, this psychological model seems to be appropriate for innovation management, too. Practically, a project target requires work and management; yet, essentially, perpetual strive for purpose and ideation is necessary, too. In science, the limitations of the human mind have been already elaborated and described by Bacon in his oeuvre Magna Instauration in 1620, as cited before. In order to confine the limits of the human understanding, he discerned four types of idols— literally meaning illusions or errors. For the marketing of innovations these typical

BARRIER

BARRIER

BARRIER

3.2 Marketing 

 99

wishful thinking

discursive misunderstanding

sensual misperception

restrictive prejudice

OBJECTIVATION facts

reason

Figure 3.16: Barriers to objectivation by human illusions.

patterns of error may serve as a starting point to make use of the elenctic method (see Figure 3.16): The first illusion is the misperception due to the human senses, called idola tribus, which means due to tribal descent of the human species. For instance, people are practically inept to perceive radio frequencies, infrared light or ultra- or infrasound, as some animals do, such as sharks, snakes, bats or elephants, for instance. Our sensing of the world is therefore restricted. For example, this barrier is an obvious limitation for every progress in electronic data transmission, which is accessible to mankind just by sophisticated appliances and requires arduous academic studies. Yet, it offers tremendous possibilities and rewards, if surmounted, for example, by suitable devices for a universal mobile telecommunication system (UMTS) or for longterm evolution (LTE) for wireless communication. The second illusion is the bias of prejudice due to human experience and comparison, called idola specus, which means due to individual aspects and related perspectives. For instance, a frequent experience of a failed innovation and its technology may be that any change bears a certain risk and that human requirements are mostly satisfied and not worth to advance any more. The perspective is therefore influenced by personal expectations, impatience, intolerance or plain incompetence. For example, the combustion engines for cars are nowadays well established by sophisticated mass production and by a network of service stations, as matter of fact.

100 

 3 Management

Therefore, electric drives have the problem that manufacturers and related service stations have to elaborate appropriate technologies for mass production, for repair services and for standardized fast refueling—just to name some basic barriers. And virtually nobody knows for sure if the electric way of power generation, distribution, onboard storage and overall consumption turns out finally more efficient and less polluting than further engine improvements by selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and biomass to liquid fuel (BtL). The illusion is here the pretended knowledge by experience, and some comprehensive information may be an appropriate mean for a spectacular marketing. The third illusion is the misunderstanding due to the human language and the articulation, called idola fori, meaning the forum for discussions and discourse. For instance, the reasonable application and the appreciation of a device are always negotiable, like a purchase decision between wood or plastics, shirt or pullover, vacation at the sea side or at the mountain side. Everything is somehow arbitrary and therefore arguable. For example, biotechnology and nanotechnology are originally quite natural ways of production and of the material structure due to the genetic code—which is notably a biological and nanoscopic process. Hence, traditional products like wool, leather, ink or wood can be veritably praised and marketed as products from biologically processes—or from nanotechnology, as well. The fourth and final illusion is wishful thinking due to the human flowering imagination, called idola theatri, which means due to the personal passion by the performance. For instance, the hope and the desire for eternal health and survival are not realistic. Yet, the fantasy knows no bounds, especially when enhanced by technology and virtual reality. For example, the barrier between life and death is basically known to everybody. But survival is an utmost reason and so highly desirable that probable healthy and life prolonging means and therapies are placed on the market over and over again. The business about healthcare and related medical treatments is the biggest and most profitable on the global market. The illusion of perpetual health for body and mind spurs equally perpetual novel financial products to an ever increasing market, like life and long-term care insurances. Lesson 18 Barriers for innovations are useful, yet even more useful if surmounted!

3.2 Marketing 

 101

3.2.2 Diffusion God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Serenity Prayer attributed to the theologian Reinhold Niebuhr around 1940

As previously described, an innovation project consists of an entelechy of factual advancements, which are achieved by managed activities during phases, and reasonable management routines, which are performed during phase changes. Now, for a thorough management, it seems of superior interest to find out when one or the other prevails. Therefore, an appropriate understanding of the entelechy for changes in marketing appears to be helpful.17 Scientifically, management concern reasonable activities in order to obtain factual changes and related achievements, in general. In detail, the progress by the marketing of an innovation becomes perceptible with the changes of the market conditions, like the product sales, the price level, the distribution and the brand awareness of the marketing mix. And innovation managers try to affect their market by suitable marketing actions in an appropriate way. In order to obtain a straight line between the reasonable management input and the factual marketing output the three success factors of the magic triangle have to be simplified. Therefore the two items at the baseline, that is, time and costs, are virtually merged to the inputs of management, for instance the activities due to the workforce, to the budget, to the investment, to a delay or just to the required management attention. The related output for an innovation project is then merely due to the achievements of the intended effects, like remuneration, improvement, disruption or technological progress (see Figure 3.17). The usual way to proceed scientifically is to divide the line of intentional change into several sections according to the factual achievements gained in between. According to Rogers, the perceptible output can be discerned by the adoption of innovations [66]. And the phases of such a course can be seized by different types of adopters. In the beginning, merely a few innovators will take the risk of purchasing a novel good from the market and early adopters begin to buy, test, experience and appreciate

costs

effect output input time

remuneration, improvement, disruption, technology ... workforce, budget, delay, attention, investment ...

Figure 3.17: Simplified input-output relation of the magic triangle. 17 Please note that diffusion of energy is mainly due to unavoidable changes, whereas diffusion of innovation is a matter of managerial intention.

102 

 3 Management

output innovators/ early adopters

followers

majority

laggards

input Figure 3.18: Typical adoption course of management inputs for innovative output.

an innovation and to diffuse their conviction to a broader community. Subsequently, in case of success, followers will adopt the offer, sooner or later. This will lead further on to a majority of adopters. Later on, further adoption will be increasingly harder to achieve according to laggards, who prefer to wait until an innovation has become familiarized, virtually at the limit of being called novel. Although there may also be leapfroggers, who even outwait some innovation cycles entirely, these four phases characterize suitably well the different phases of the marketing of innovations (see Figure 3.18). Most interestingly, the particular form of this course complies with the earlier observation and the demand for self-similarity of project management as a fractal pattern. A superposition of two or more adoption courses yields again an adoption course by its envelope (see Figure 3.19). For instance, the diffusion of photovoltaics started in 1953 with a first version of (mono-) crystalline silicon c-Si, which was improved in 1981 to an advanced version of polycrystalline silicon mc-Si and then became substituted by a version of amorphous silicon a-Si in 1999, ready for thin film applications and large solar cells, until the version of organic photovoltaic cells OPC became available by 2009. The cumulating superposition of the adoption curves for each single technological version yields to an envelope course for the total adoption of the photovoltaic technology. Thereby, the bell-shaped course of adoption shows to be particularly suited to cope with the demand for the management integration of several innovation cycles. The challenge for innovation managers is to integrate routines and projects into a justified business case. The problem with management routines, cycles, circles or

output V1

V2

V3 V4 input

Figure 3.19: Self-similarity of four superimposed versions V of adoption courses.

3.2 Marketing 

 103

circuits is the absence of a beginning or an ending—just a perpetual loop to be kept in equilibrium. However, projects are defined by target-orientation, by uniqueness, by limitation, and by autonomy. The managerial task to integrate routines as well as projects to a business case for marketing may give a genuine sense to the saying: The market has its own rules. Mathematically, integration is represented by the surface area underneath a curve up to each point of consecutive input. For the slightly increasing slope of innovators, early adopters, and even followers, the integration is equally an increasing slope, even though with some cumulating in the grading. Then, when majority is attained, the integration curve yields a maximum of its grade—and subsequently degrades, when the amount of new adopters recedes. Finally, according to a vanishing amount of late adopters as laggards, the integration approaches an asymptote, that is, a straight line on a higher level. In that way, an integration of the adoption course results in an s-curved slope, which may be understood as the course for the market penetration, measurable by achievements like sales, throughput, market volume or rate of return. And the different types of adopters can be reattributed to the different phases of the life cycle in marketing, namely a first introduction stage by the innovators, a subsequent growth stage by the followers and then a maturity stage by the majority, followed by an asymptotic saturation stage according to the laggards in adoption (see Figure 3.20). Empirical studies proved that the diffusion of most innovations and even technologies follow such an s-shaped curvature. Exceptions to that are reasonably justified by the lack of free markets and fair trades during crises, like the Second World War or a general economic recession [67]. Therefore, it seems quite promising to find a mathematical function matching that slope. By differential analysis we are generally instructed that each line can be approximated by a sequence of linear sections, known as the differential quotient. And in many cases, this straight line is a good approximation even for a broader sector of the course. In cases, where the first linear approximation is not adequate, the inclusion of a second differentiation may be envisaged, as the change of the change. Very seldom a third differentiation becomes practically necessary. However, for a closed loop even an arbitrarily high differentiation is not enough, since the self-similarity always reproduces a comparable course by differentiation. This

output

introduction by early adopters

growth by followers

maturity by majority

saturation by laggards

input Figure 3.20: Integrated output of an innovation project case.

104 

 3 Management

behavior has to be approached by an exponential equation at the base of the Euler number. In particular, by means of statistical Logit analysis McFadden established a reasonable approach of the s-shape course to the logistic function of a sigmoid curve [68]: y = A/[1+e– Bx ], where A is a scaling coefficient for the expected output at maximum input x→∞; and B is a form coefficient, representing the incline at maximum x = 0. Please note, that the differentiation equation

∂y/∂x = ABe

_Bx

/ [1+e

_Bx 2

] = AB/[e Bx/2 +e

_Bx/2 2

]

provides the required bell-shape course of adoption with a maximum for x = 0. This means that the s-curve attains a maximum grade of AB/4 for an output of A/2. Apart from the difficulty to handle the exponential function, the Logit function bears simply on two parameters, similar to any linear approximation. For a practical use, however, the onset of input at x = 0 is harder to determine and more important. Indeed, it seems reasonable to start each consideration of inputs for innovations at almost minus infinite, since the very origins may lie in early scientific observations or even in dark mythical ages. Therefore, the parameter B always requires some sort of delta diagnosis, that is, the discrete outputs y1 and y2 for an input delta Δx: B = ∆[ln(y/(A _ y))]/∆x = ln[(y2 (A _ y1 ))/(y1 (A _ y2 ))]/∆x For example, if the marketing research predicts a volume of $ 240 million and projects the total manpower of about 30 years of work to raise the annual sales from $ 10 million to $ 20 million, then the scaling coefficient A is simply $ 240 million, whereas: B = ln[(20 230)/(10 220)]/30 a

2 .5 % per annum.

The maximum grade is then achieved for AB/4 ≈ $ 1.5 million sales per annum of projected work, which sounds promising for a net operating margin of 10%, providing $ 150,000 per annum of projected work. However, this level is only attained, when x = 0 and y2 = A/2, that is: x = ln[230/10]/B ≈ 128 years of work. Hence, the linear performance to yield a maximum grade at the level of A/2 = $ 120 million would just be $ 110 million for 128 years of projected work, providing therefore just about $ 86,000 sales per annum of projected work. This may appear quite hazardous in regard to the investment risks to take. The management may thus decide to wait a bit and to monitor the related market

3.2 Marketing 

 105

activities and the general proceedings at low costs, until the prospective becomes more promising. The particular slope of the Logit function is recursive, that is, the output is not just a function of the input, but even influenced by the level of the output attained. For instance, a certain market penetration is required in order to obtain some perception of the offer, which can be enhanced subsequently. Inversely, the growth can be disproportionally high for a well-established offer on the market, so that the output rises almost independently from marketing efforts. This is obviously a comfortable and preferable moment for investment. Yet, the market volume is limited in general and the growth is asymptotically restricted to an upper threshold, so that the surplus may still increase, but with a decreasing margin. At a given point, it may appear futile to invest in further growth. This peculiarity has to be considered for marketing, too. Fundamentally, each sponsor of an innovation project expects some advantages in return for the efforts made. The more input by costs, by time, by work or by attention is invested, the higher the output by remuneration, by savings, by production or by sales is expected. Otherwise, the efforts are not worthwhile. Economically, each innovation underlies the dynamic rules for investments, that is, a comparison to mere capital assets with compounded interests. Therefore, the annual output balance bi due to the benefits and the expenses is listed for the project investment. The Net Present Value (NPV) is the cumulative output for a comparable investment with a fixed interest p within a period of n years: NPV = ∑ bi /(1+p)i where i = 0 . . . n are the annual terms, respectively. For example, an annual investment of some $ 100,000 during three years in order to obtain afterwards an annual surplus of the same amount during six years attains a total surplus of $ 300,000. Yet, in comparison to fixed-interests of 10% per annum the NPV yields just about $ 85,000. This is but less than a third of the total surplus by a neglect of interests, but still considerable more than another capital investment at 10% interests. The Internal Rate of Return IRR, that is, the comparable interest for mere capital assets, can be gauged by some 17%. Or, it would be possible to achieve a payback already in the fourth year of surplus and reinvest further surplus of the eighth and ninth year to further project (see Figure 3.21). Please note, however, that the relations of the Logit function may also be multivariant, because other measures of management inputs are possible, like manpower, time delay or management milestones, as well as other output correlations, like product throughput, market share or other business ratings. Similar to any linear correlation, such a regressive correlation is eligible to link two different accounts of cause and effect in a justified manner. And the advantage of this quite simple approach is to conceive, to organize, to plan, and to control better the activities of a marketing project. Hence, a qualifying analysis is advisable with respect to the changes.

106 

 3 Management

profit

innovation project

launch

sales without interests

+ 0 –

with interests time

expenses Figure 3.21: Remuneration from the investment in an innovation project.

This course of economic changes for innovation marketing can be equally stated for the life cycle of improvements, of disruptions, and of technologies. And the different stages of diffusion are applicable to manage innovations as well as technological developments, although with other wordings. During the introduction stage of an innovation the output is rather low or even negative, if the financial balance is considered as output. During that stage, the sales are dominated by the expenses, instead of a profit there is a deficit, and to obtain a later reward a previous investment is required. With regard to technologies this is called the fundamental or even embryonic stage. For example, the introduction of the Internet required considerable efforts, like data transmission, processing, software, and education. In the beginning, the commercial interest was rather low and development was left to enthusiastic innovators. Even early customers had to be somehow passionate and patient, because products were delivered premature and become mature just by laborious implementation onsite. This is called the banana principle of marketing, since bananas are picked unripe and ripened during shipment to become ready for market onsite. It seems to be a general method for the marketing of embryonic technologies, like the callow steam engine of Newcomen in 1712, the sober steam locomotive of Trevethick in 1804, the frugal motor carriage of Benz in 1886, the fragile motor airplane by the Wrights in 1903 or the homespun calculation machine by Zuse in 1941. During the following growth stage the output becomes positive and increasingly higher according to the early or later followers. Incrementally, the momentum of the form coefficient B becomes important, so that the benefits exceed the expenses, at last. With regard to technologies this is called the pace making stage according to a growing market. For example, the growth of the Internet began in 1969 as ARPANET for military purposes and was transformed in 1989 by CERN for scientific purposes, that is, still with subvention of public funds. Only by 1993 it became available as a World Wide Web (WWW) for early commercial applications and attained in the late 1990s a tremendous value creation, which was then used by Internet enterprises almost for

3.2 Marketing 

 107

free. This is called the free rider principle of marketing, since a novel common property is used with relatively low expenses to obtain private earnings. This, too, can be observed for the marketing of pace making technologies, like the sophisticated power engine of Watt in 1769, the profitable railroad line by Stephenson in 1825, the tailored manufacture of automobiles by Peugeot in 1891, the corresponding manufacture of aircrafts by Blériot in 1909 or the electronic computer by IBM in 1947. During the next stage of maturity the output increases almost by itself without further inputs required according to a majority of customers. The innovation is virtually self-selling. However, the curvature of the diffusion recedes, when the related phase change is passed, because the increment recedes although the surplus attains steadily new heights. With regard to technologies this is called the key stage, where a boom of products, of processes, of sales, and of reorganizations happens. In that phase, the public economy is generally rewarded for the early subvention and the patience at the embryonic stage, since an increase of wealth, of prosperity, and of a related increase of tax income could be discerned for related industrial economies in the past. For example, at the end of the 1990s a New Economy was propagated and discussed due to Internet business. More and more enterprises found more and more applications for the respective new technology, like retail services by Amazon 1995, information services by Google 1998 or social communication services by Facebook 2004—just to name those, which attained a multibillion stock exchange value and are still leading in their business. For many startups bankrupted in 2000 according to the dotcom bubble, when it became doubtful, whether such business cases can provide sufficient surplus, since the substance is just the name of an Internet domain “.com” for company or commerce. However, a key stage effect can be equally attributed to other technological developments, like the power contracting by Boulton in 1775, the transcontinental railroad in the United States in 1869, the customized Tin Lizzy Model T by Ford in 1908, the commercial aircraft by Junckers in 1919 or the personal computer (PC) by Hewlett-Packard in 1968. During the final saturation stage the output approaches more and more an upper limit with increasing input efforts again to gain even the laggards as new customers. Due to the high market volume, marketing may still be profitable, yet with a considerably decreasing margin. With regard to technologies this is called the basic stage, where products, processes, sales, and organizations become standardized on an aging market. For example, Internet services are meanwhile a basis for modern life and almost everywhere in industrialized countries available at fixed rates. The dominant companies try to defend their market position or to gain more substance by an acquisition and an incorporation of other promising business ideas and related startups. For example, take the e-book reading by Amazon Kindle, the Alphabet Inc. as a holding for former Google diversifications, including Nest Labs home automation, or the acquisition of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus VR by Facebook.

108 

 3 Management

Technologically, the attained basis may turn out as a further fundamental platform for a next cycle of embryonic initiatives, like a renaissance of the Sterling motor for solar power, high-speed bullet trains by magnetic levitation, electric car propulsion with fuel cells, wide-bodied or supersonic aircrafts or globally interlinked cyber physical systems (CPS)—just to name some possibilities of uncertain changes in the near future. Generally, innovation marketing comes to an end with the adoption of laggards on a saturated market, at least. But the achieved improvements, disruptions, and technologies persist considerably longer, until being replaced by other innovations. Again, self-similarity can be obtained by considering further decline stages. During degeneration the output decreases in spite of the occasionally strong efforts to maintain a position. The established products, processes, sales logistics or organizations will then be neglected or not serviced anymore, so that replacements or expertise cannot be supplied. With regard to technologies this corresponds to an overall stagnation and an economic recession. For example, the former magnetic tapes or floppy discs have been substituted by DVD or USB flash drives. Technologically, this stage is characterized by a market consolidation and a progressive standardization, which is accompanied by considerable price deterioration (see Figure 3.22). And even a follow-up stage may be considered, where work inputs are directly related to the business outputs for after sales services, like warranty, replacements or disposal. Sometimes, it may be profitable to keep remnants on stock and to provide suitable competences for former products or processes. Yet, in general, the corresponding technologies vanish and attain the status of an economic depression—if not relieved by a next cycle of improvement and growth. Again, a bell-shape curve is obtained, ready for another integration and related management activities. The analysis of the actual stage within an innovation of technology life cycle is an enduring duty for the marketing managers. Lesson 19 Innovation progress takes generally an s-shaped course!

output

product life cycle introduction

growth

maturity

saturation

degeneration/follow-up

technology life cycle embryonic

pace making

key

basic

receding

input Figure 3.22: Subsequent phases of the life cycles of products and of technologies.

3.2 Marketing 

 109

3.2.3 Design For improved clarification it is sometimes enough to change the point of view. observation attributed to the writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry 1900–1944

The epistemology of innovation is somewhat strange in regard to objectivation. As the appreciation of a design is subjective, one has the rather strange relation that the objective of a reasonable design approach is again a reasonable decision. However, this decision is but taken as a fact. Therefore, the usual objectivation by physical evidence disappears—or is paradoxically already included within the design approach. This seems to be a bit dubious yet promising for a reasonable marketing and the overcoming of the innovation barriers. This peculiar self-reference of a design approach helps to generate, perform, and offer something suitable because the designer does already represent characteristics of a probable customer, too. Scientifically, this works like a mirror in the middle of the divided line allegory between facts and reason, which displays each notion immediately by a reflection. In that way, the innovation path is bent to a loop (see Figure 3.23). More than that, innovations become probably usefully executed and applied, because they already satisfy the needs and expectations of the original inventor by means of that short cut. That way around, it is not only inevitable that there is always some idolized illusion involved in innovation marketing, but it turns out to be advantageous. If the stakeholders are enthusiastic about the marketing perspectives of an innovation project, the success seems to be tangible.

executed perception justified application

believed objectivation

Figure 3.23: Design objectivation by a virtual merging of an application and its perception.

110 

 3 Management

Literally, design stands for a line-drawing, a graph or any other pictured designations. Originally, it just implied the shaping and the configuration of things, like bridges, buildings, machines or clothes. Meanwhile, arrangements and layouts for mental concepts are comprised, too. And sometimes even sketches for comic or film strips are designed, nowadays. In general, design is subjected to the class of comparative truths, like beauty, charm, elegance or classiness. And these esthetic points of view seem a bit inappropriate for a veritable scientific objectivation, since it is commonly agreed that there is no accounting for taste. Although the whole industry sector of fashion works hard to find an annual vogue for the taste of people, all attempts failed to seize those trends theoretically, so far. There are indeed claims for a design theory; however, no scientific method is known to verify a result objectively. Accordingly, design instructions correspond to the operational methods known in arts and esthetics, which are oriented to man’s impression. And they are based on several design functions, like ergonomics, information, symbolism, structure, psychology, intuition, didactics or meditation. In particular, the Kano model provides an approach by quality management to seize the different aspects of customer satisfactions in a measurable way [69]. It is based on the determination of two factors by a subjective evaluation of the customer, namely, the perceived implementation of a feature and the acknowledged satisfaction with that feature [70] (see Figure 3.24). This leads to a better understanding of the driving expectations for customers and thus indicates improvements for the design. For example, the performance quality is based on the assumption that the perceivable implementation corresponds almost linear to the subjective satisfaction, because a customer is generally more satisfied with a higher performance. This is mainly due to the features with a physical extent, like service time, range, size or even inversely smallness of a designed object.

customer satisfaction

high

del

igh

pe

tin

rfo

ua gq

rm

a

lity

q nce

ua

lity

perceptible implementation

low

high must-be quality low

Figure 3.24: Objectivation of design quality by the Kano model.

3.2 Marketing 

 111

But there is also a must-be quality, which does not satisfy anymore, if a certain level of satisfaction has been already accomplished, yet dissatisfies, if an inferior implementation is perceived. This is mainly due to the features for security and reliability, like protective functions or robustness. Then, there is also a delighting quality, which inversely does not dissatisfy, when missing, yet disproportionally satisfies, when perceived. This is mainly due to supplementary features—especially for free—like giveaways, individualized designations or a personal configuration. Finally, there are quality features without any impact on the satisfaction or maybe even a cause for some disappointment, because they are only perceptible on failure, like an implemented tracking, a surveillance or control system of the manufacturer, which is useless for the customer, yet kind of troubling. Obviously, the evaluation by the Kano model turns out to be quite useful for some objectivation of the design for the marketing of innovations. In particular, innovation design has the basic task to surmount the barriers of marketing. The more a customer has to accustom him- or herself with an innovation, the harder will be its introduction to the market. Or, contrariwise, the easier a novelty fits into the sociologic, technologic, economic, and politic conditions of a human living, the earlier the innovation reward will be obtained. By design, a practical debate about needs and desires of customers can take place without the loading of a theoretical overhead. And pragmatic solutions for the marketing of innovations become available without the restrictions by methodical instructions. More than a mere packaging of different blanks, like in fashion, innovation design has to include several industrial functions for the processing, the quality, the production, the development, the communication, the service and many more. Again, all the aspects of innovation projects have to be considered under the purpose of marketing. In consequence, the number of possible design functions matches the number of different influences for the mentioned phases, success factors and promoter categories of the project case, namely almost infinite. And the urge for a design is due to the expectation that it provides a reasonable solution for a significant choice within a foreseeable period. That is why design is basically a multidisciplinary event. As the general design procedure is basically a cyclic sequence, it can be described by subsequent phases, as explained for the management cycle of projects before. Hence, the initial step is a design conception by an exploration of the requirements. Later, there are similar tasks for design organization by a feasibility study. Then, there comes a design planning and a testing. And at last, a controlling follows and—if the target is achieved—the launch of the product. If this sequence does not yield an approved result, the whole procedure has to restart and to be repeated all over again, until a satisfactory output is obtained. This iterative approach seems to be rather appropriate for the enclosure of a result within a fuzzy area by some sort of spirally winded encircling.

112 

 3 Management

Design Thinking is a particular procedure of alternating divergent and convergent phases. During a divergent phase the task is to generate as much designs as possible, which are subsequently focused during a convergent phase to a primary design version, executed as tangible as possible. This version is collectively examined in order to obtain a common understanding. Upon this improved comprehension further designs are generated during another divergent phase, which are subsequently focused again during a convergent phase by a refined version. By repeated matching of mental concepts and of their tangible execution different design functions become implemented gradually. For instance, the first version may be a simplified model of the innovation, like a product prototype or a pilot study, in the case of a process design. This prototype or pilot contains some first design functions, which can be examined now for fact, for example, according to the geometry, packaging, esthetics or other impacts and interactions. Nowadays, early demonstrations are feasible by means of computer simulation, which accelerates the prototyping process considerably. And by rapid prototyping even a three-dimensional and therefore objective version becomes available for an improved examination. In regard to complex products or processes, like built-in furniture, homesteads, cars or production plants, a successive enhancement of versions is also applicable to gain some attraction and related knowledge about customer restraints for an improved marketing. Usability Engineering is another special approach for such customer-oriented design. Although this concept is mostly applied for software development, it has become also applied for convenient goods under the tag of User Centered Design. This approach also contains standardized process models with a prescribed sequence of phases [71]. Basically, it starts by a profiling of the intended customer. In a second step some suitable requirements and features are derived according to that profile. Then, a tangible design version is produced, which can be discussed with several representatives of the intended customers. And finally, the prototype or the pilot study is repeatedly improved and tested to achieve a collective appreciation. For instance, these design studies are mostly organized as workshops, in an innovation lab or an innovation factory. Such a suitably equipped accommodation permits interpersonal contacts, stimulating conversations, spontaneous presentations or even devices for the prototyping and an access to information systems. The design of such design workshops is a special challenge with respect to the human needs and related sentiments. In that way, the design for market seems related to Kant’s categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” [72]. In particular, Human Centered Design is an approach to include as much as possible people with different backgrounds for the purpose of a design process, for instance older and younger people, men and women, professionals and laymen, engineers and salesmen, conservative or progressive minded, and all kinds of nuances

3.2 Marketing 

 113

in-between and beyond. In that way, common interests, needs, and sentiments of customers become involved. For example, the company IDEO is repeatedly counted among the most innovative enterprises in the world and offers innovation consulting on the basis of a high diversity of consultants for design of trademarks, ergonomics, health, industry, interaction, communication, food, machines, software, business, environment, and many others [73]. A further design concept is labeled Co-Creation by Prahalad and Ramaswamy to include customers directly in the process of product design [74]. Especially for consumer goods this becomes increasingly feasible by a utilization of Internet platforms, like forums, blogs, wikis or other web-2.0-technologies. Such novel Internet services try to allocate a large amount of Internet users by cloud computing and exploit the collective intelligence for an improved design of the software, of the layout, of the service and even of the hardware, like the Arduino board. Although a similar cooperation has been commonly used for the purpose of industrial goods, it has now become available by new Internet technologies and a feasible cloud sourcing. And it seems apt to disrupt the way business is executed in marketing. Lesson 20 The innovation reward is always due to human appreciation!

3.2.4 Opening Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. from: The Russian Revolution—A Critical Acclaim by Rosa Luxemburg 1930

When being disclosed to an open market, an innovation has to undergo assent or dissent by the public. Hence, marketing is always connected to some liberalization, literally meaning freeing and eventually understood as well as a disclosure, an opening, a sharing or a release. And when an innovation is released, all promoters are welcomed to participate freely in shared applications and open appreciations. On that occasion, the related categories for marketing exceed considerably the identifiable number of barriers, phase changes, and design functions, which have been previously considered. Therefore, marketing promoters tend to prefer a general liberalization – yet, with due respect to private property as a civil liberty protected by the human rights. Thus, every community has to find a way to constitute, govern, and rule the border between a factual property, on one hand, and the reasonable freedom, on the other. And the utmost dilemma is about intellectual properties, which concern science and innovations.

114 

 3 Management

Knowledge itself is a volatile good because the products of knowledge belong to those particular resources, which increase, when being shared. For example, ideas, theories, science, and education are rather quickly dispersed by speeches—as all scientists know. Therefore, industrialized countries generally grant a copyright in order to protect the investments made for inventions. This has been a reason for an ideological quarrel with the former Soviet Union, where they arguably concerned themselves more liberal and free, because they had fewer rights on private as well as on intellectual property. Everything was deliberately considered for free interchange and unsolicited application on the market. However, when it became evident that only few people were actually interested in such a freedom, some communist governments claimed to possess the right wisdom, yet not an equally wise population—and consequently send many their citizens to re-education camps. This may be logically a sound conclusion, however totally inacceptable for marketing.18 Regarding the marketing of innovations, a similar paradox becomes obvious: Intellectual property rights are a legal barrier, deliberately erected to cause exclusivity and thereby a special economic reward becomes achievable in order to support certain remuneration for the investments of an innovation project. But therefore, supplementary work packages become necessary for the elaboration of the claims as well as for a supplementary inspection of other patent claims concerning the same purpose. Consequently, surplus expenses are mandatory to establish and to surmount these barriers. Hence, it is again arguable, if liberalization or circumvention of those barriers would be a clever way to save money. And occasionally it is argued that without exclusivity the marketing of innovations would be promoted to an extent that even a higher remuneration could be achieved. It has always been a management duty to watch out for inexpensive knowledge, gratis ideas or cheap intellectual competences. In fact, such intentions are supported by public subventions and by related promotion projects according to science and technology development, research institutions and sociological information. In accordance with the design of innovations, an enhanced involvement of the population by some public-private partnership (PPP)—comprising the plurality of individuals and the wisdom of crowds—is extraordinarily apt to surmount the barriers for the marketing of innovations. Therefore, liberalized economies are mostly stronger than regulated markets [75]. In particular, Open Innovation is a concept brought forward by Chesbrough to manage the exchange of knowledge, which is required for an innovation [76]. By this approach, innovation management becomes an immaterial product itself, which can be handled, traded, and marketed by the related services. The ideas, the experience

18 Please remember that logic has no own truth but consists merely on a justification. If the premises are wrong, a logical conclusion may lead correctly to a wrong conclusion.

3.2 Marketing 

 115

and the knowledge get merchandized as intellectual goods, with the surplus value of saved re-creations, re-generations, re-experiences or even re-failures. In that way, innovation management may be even outsourced to a consultancy. And innovation managers become innovation consultants—again with probable advantages for savings, crowd sourcing, and marketability. Obviously, open innovation is closely connected to knowledge management. The special advantage of external consultancy is a broader experience and a wider network of the whole market and its different players. In particular, use cases, best practices or success stories become available without the usual restrictions of mutual benchmarking [77]. The related categories can be discerned according to four processes (see Figure 3.25). The closed process concerns the usual way to care about with the particular features of an enterprise and to pursue the interests of a particular sponsor. Those ideas, those technical skills and the related knowledge about the markets become clearly elaborated and confined, which seem particularly inventive and deserving some protection. This is obviously the traditional way to practice knowledge management for innovations. For example, an audit may identify the experts and their particular competences. Their profiles can be concerted by specific knowledge circles. And this process can probably be supported by some knowledge engineering, that is, the allocation of the disperse knowledge by means of electronic data processing, of document analysis, of data mining and of crowd sourcing—at least, if the participants of such an endeavor are open for a faithful and dedicated collaboration. The challenge of the closed process is to get access to the tacit knowledge of people, that is, the individual expertise inside the heads. As already revealed for the elenctic method, the availability of consciously known things is limited to the

INSIDE-OUT PROCESS explicit

external knowledge

implicit tacit

internal knowledge CLOS

ED PROCES

S

COUPLED PROCESS

tacit

open knowledge

implicit

OUTSIDE-IN PROCESS Figure 3.25: Management processes between two knowledge spheres.

explicit

116 

 3 Management

practical use and the awareness of it. However, most knowledge drowses or hides unconsciously, implicit and hidden, and is therefore not apt for an explicit handling. In addition, open knowledge is not very hortative for employees since its dispersion may lower the appreciation of the white-collar jobs. Thus, it requires a certain incentive to spur the motivation for sharing knowledge, like a bonus system for serviceable contributions to innovation projects and marketing. The inside-out process for open innovations concerns the proliferation of internal knowledge to external parties. The general problem here is a kind of a pig in a poke deal: The external party does not know the fair value of the purchase, yet has to pay in advance, because the internal knowledge will lose its special value in the very moment of transfer. In some cases, it may be better to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), in order to prevent any further proliferation. Yet, in other cases, it may be advantageous to spread some insider knowledge gratuitously, for instance by publishing, in order to remove some innovation barriers. In any case, the price for information is arbitrary. For example, an ample announcement of business ideas, intentions, strategies or even of technical solutions can be helpful to inform and to inspire the potential customers. Additionally, other actors on the market may be interested in a useful cooperation or the equipment may become cheaper due to the rule of scale. Especially, the fields of ecology and recycling are topics for cooperation beyond competition, but provide some advantageous public relations for the marketing. The challenge of an inside-out process is to ensure remuneration as sort of an innovation reward. The announcement of novel technological features can cause appropriate regulations by time or support the timely implementation of convenient standards, like pins, sizes or transfer rates for electronic appliances, which limit the diversity of devices. As explained for innovation design by the Kano model, these features have mostly no impact on the customer satisfaction or may even cause some disappointment. They are negligible for competition, yet convenient for common— improved or profitable—solutions at marketing. Inversely, the outside-in process concerns the appropriation of external knowledge, be it by purchase or by consequential costs. Even without transaction costs, there are still expenses for consulting, management and implementation of the knowledge to account for. However, external knowledge may provide exactly the missing inspiration or link, necessary for successful launch and marketing of an innovation. For example, many manufacturers of industrial and consumer goods have established a web portal to introduce and to discuss suggestions and possible solutions in an early stage of development. And similar platforms are dedicated to exchange the knowledge for technological solutions, be it open-source software like Linux, or be it open-source hardware like Arduino. For example, during the development of the market for electronic CCD cameras, the camera manufacturers had to internalize electronic knowledge as well as the electronic companies had to acquire appropriate camera knowledge, such as Nikon and Sony, respectively.

3.2 Marketing 

 117

The challenge of the outside-in process is to gain new competences without losing the inherent cognizance. The announcement of a novel business field can help to spread the risks and to establish a secondary application for the overhead expenses as well as the creation of probable synergies—a daily business for top managers at global players like General Electric or Nestle. Yet, it may also cause high losses, if the acquisition does not fit with the original purchaser, like the merger of Daimler and Chrysler between 1998 and 2007. Sometimes it seems better to restructure the acquisition in a more marketable way like Google becoming a part of Alphabet Inc., which has been genuinely established by Google itself. There are obviously no bounds for reasoning in marketing. Finally, the coupled process concerns the mutual exchange of knowledge. This is especially promising, when there are correspondingly mutual interest, yet different aims, like shared computing centers for Internet enterprises. Ideas can be discussed openly, technical solutions can be compared freely and mutual interests can be marketed deliberately. Favorably, each partner of a coupled process obtains better conditions for the pursuit and for the marketing of the own innovation projects. For example, a joint venture helps to spur the sales or even permits the entry on restricted markets like China or Russia, like for the automobile or the oil industry. Sometimes, the appropriate activities and the competences are released to form a new company of mutual investment, like the Airbus Group formed by Dassault, Eurofighter, Arianespace, and others. And a joint development promises enormous savings in high-end technologies, like the pursuit of a common open compute project (OPC) by Facebook, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco and others [78]. In particular, supply chain management is an option for mutually beneficial coupling, as complex products are assembled by a vast supplier cascade, structured by several levels of tiers. Sometimes an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of automobiles, aircrafts, computers, or satellites has just some percentage of in-house production that requires an intense coordination with the suppliers, who have similar coordination projects with some other OEMs. Although the majority of innovations is developed by the suppliers, they are still marketed by the OEM, in general. Candor and curiosity have been always a prerequisite for each innovation. Candor is required to surmount the innovation barriers and curiosity is helpful to find the suitable solutions. However, an innovation project generates usually more knowledge than strictly necessary to obtain exclusivity and a unique selling proposition. And inversely, other innovation projects may fail, because the knowledge to generate seems too expensive. Therefore, an exchange of knowledge may help to establish a certain compensation for that dilemma. The main problem for such form of mutual consultancy is a certain alienation of the work and the corresponding responsibility. Although the shared knowledge is handled by consultants and may serve as basis for a next business case, the responsibility still remains at the enterprises and their respective executive managers.

118 

 3 Management

A failure of consultancy can be only attributed to defective methods and not to a forthcoming business deficit. The failures have to be sustained by the enterprise, its employees, and its investors. That is why the categories for an open innovation are just and only due to the processes of consultancy for innovation marketing. They do not guarantee a successful release. Lesson 21 Openness facilitates innovations, yet by reducing exclusivity!

4 Invention Invention goes along with wit. Discovery goes along with luck. And both cannot go without either of both. from: Maxims and Reflections #364 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1833 (posthumous)

On the path from idea to innovation one usually encounters invention—literally meaning introduction and the initial realization by execution of the idea. An idea, though, can be already captured by a reasonable description of that inventive execution. The literal meaning of the word “patent” is disclosure and stands for the publication of such a preliminary description of an invention on the way to an innovation. Again, the entelechy of an innovation follows the Analogy of the Divided Line from comprehensive ideas to reasonable descriptions to realized inventions and a factual innovation (see Figure 4.1). In order to obtain a patent, an invention has to be described in an executable way that it can be realized by a reasonably skilled expert. Please note that an idea is neither a patent nor an invention nor an innovation but has to be gradually realized by description, execution, and applied diffusion for any advancement. Please note also that a patent claim is not to be executed but described in an executable way. And an innovation requires a certain invention but not necessarily a patent. Finally, neither a patent nor an invention assures an innovation reward; both are just prerequisites to grant exclusivity for the diffusion by marketing during a certain period in a certain market. These four notifications usually cover the most irritations according to innovation management. Furthermore, discoveries are generally considered as detections of facts in nature and not as detections of technical ideas. They can be published yet not patented, because they have already been in existence although neither perceived before nor reasonably explained. The mere discovery of a fact is not an invention; however, invention and discovery are scientifically interdependent in the same way as reasonable and factual truths. As previously explained for science in general, each discovery requires a certain mindset, a reasonable intention or a resolution—and each invention needs a certain effect, a factual execution or a solution. The description of a fact is rather a statement than an invention. All existing things are accepted as state of the art, even if their existence has been ignored before. The discovery of a new application or its transfer to a successful business case may be somehow innovative and useful, but a veritable invention is genuinely associated with an act of creation, which implies the intentional introduction of a reasonable consideration into the world. For example, natural laws or natural things and their mechanisms are categorically excluded from patentability. There is no claim for the mere utilization of stones,

120 

 4 Invention

Figure 4.1: Entelechy from idea to innovation by patent and invention.

petroleum, uranium, or air and water—and there is none for gravity, nuclear fission, black holes, or electromagnetic waves. The natural heritage of the world is presumed as gifted and its free application belongs mainly to the liberties protected by human rights. Nevertheless, it is possible to present a discovery as kind of an invention because it may inspire ideas for novel applications. For the required justification of a patent claim, this logic can be inverted when the idea for an application is placed as an initial intention, which is then discovered as a fact. For example, drugs achieve a tremendous effect by small doses strictly due to the fact that they already exist within the human metabolism. And pharmaceutical research consists mainly in the detection of these natural mechanisms. Consequently, only the process of reproducing the natural agent would be patentable, not the substance of the agent itself. However, a patent claim may be described in such a way that the idea for a novel application was conceived earlier but had been later surprisingly found in form of that suitable agent. In a similar way patents can be claimed for bionic discoveries, that is, the inspiration of technical solutions by the discovery of biological mechanisms. And still in discussion is the patentability of genes, where particular functionalities of a genotype from plants, animals or even people are discovered. In any case, an invention is related to a technical accomplishment. Therefore, someone with just an idea is just an originator, not yet an inventor. The mere idea

4 Invention 

 121

for an application does not obtain a patent, even if it is described in an extraordinarily beautiful, comprehensible, and plausible or even useful way. An invention has to establish a justified technical combination of reason and fact. Besides the idea for an application, a related idea for the execution has to be furnished. For example, all inventions bear on the acknowledged state of the arts in science and technology. Surely, fantastic opportunities would be given if this framework could be outsmarted: With superluminal velocity one could perambulate the universe; with fractal quantum numbers one could generate an infinite amount of energy; with absolutely rigid material one could realize constructions enduring arbitrary loads; and by hyperspace travels one could reach every place at the same time. All this is describable yet not executable. And a display without execution may be ready for some copyright but not for a patent. Indeed, the feasibility of an idea alone is an invention, yet it is without the secured exclusivity of a patent claim. For that purpose the claim has to be stated by a legal recourse. And the owner of a patent is not always the inventor but nowadays mostly an enterprise, which wants to obtain a unique selling proposition and invests also in the legal project required to describe, claim, and defend a patent. Besides an application and its execution, a business case is advisable in order to justify the expenses— although the profitable use of a patent is not strictly stipulated. However, the fees to hold a patent are incrementally increasing with time, which causes a certain economic necessity for appropriate commercial benefits. For example, patents expire after a conceded period and are then freely available for everybody, like the car, radio, computer or pharmaceutical drugs. The famous inventor Edison obtained in 1889 a patent for a so-called eddy current separator. Yet, the operational costs were too expensive for a profitable application until the novel neodymium magnet NIB was invented in 1988. However, by then, the patent claim had expired and that principle could not be claimed any more. Similarly, there are no valid claims for the mere invention of such things as fire, the wheel, clothing or writing, anymore, since their execution has already been established. And a patent is usually rejected if the related invention has been publicly presented earlier than the request for a claim. Therefore, patents are subject to certain confidentiality and to concealment until they become accredited. To summarize, the patent remedy for a patent claim is simply the following: First, take a reasonable idea for an application; second, describe its factual execution and, third, disclose it only to a patent office. This corresponds obviously again to the scientific success factors of epistemology. The application has to be reasonable, the execution factual and the case justified. A patent claim concerns the application by novel technical means or, at least, a novel combination of techniques, like a new material, a new machine or a new process. If the technology is already known and just applied for a novel purpose, a utility patent can be claimed, for example, for the commercialization of a particular material, machine or process. If just the impression and the esthetic feeling are newly

122 

 4 Invention

conceived, a design patent can be claimed, for example, for the very appearance and the aspired effects in the perception. A trademark concerns a novel denomination or a symbol for a product, company or service. Generally, a genuine intellectual property right exists already without any particular declaration and official accreditation, for example, for a mental effort or its artful execution by a newly created oeuvre, for example, in wording, lettering, as an image or as a sculpture. Invention is a prerequisite for innovation management and sometimes excluded from the related managerial duties to be accomplished. In that sense, innovation management may be understood as some kind of business administration to ensure that reasonable applications comply with justified business cases. Such an approach restricts the managerial role to securing remuneration of the investment for the project and the marketing for an innovation reward. In industrial engineering, however, an innovation also includes a technical effort to find a factual solution for a reasonable application. Therefore, considerable technical skills as well as an inventive resourcefulness become necessary for the execution. And this may include some competence for the detection and the patenting of technical inventions, mainly comprising patent agents or attorneys with suitable training or education. Again, these correlating duties have to be integrated by the project management and innovation marketing in a comprehensible way. For instance, projects usually include inventive tasks, sometimes apt for patents, although not originally projected and planned. Additionally, other management routines for quality, production or development often lead to inventive solutions, for example, by fault clearance, process enhancement or product improvement. An invention is an interdisciplinary event and occurs in many overlapping managerial structures. Occasionally, this may cause irritations or discussions. In any case, a general readiness, an endeavor and skillfulness can be expected from an innovation manager to handle all the related duties for invention. Lesson 22 Inventions are just executable ideas for applications!

4.1 Development 

 123

4.1 Development Thirty spokes share a wheel’s hub; It is the free space which makes its rolling circularity. Shape clay into a vessel; It is the clearance within which makes the volume. Cut doors and windows for a room; It is the holes which makes the habitation. Therefore: What is there is due to possession; What is not there is due to purpose. from: Tao Te Ching, Chapter 71 by Lao Tzu about 400 BC

There is always some void for an improvement of the existing things, because there are infinite purposes for every piece of matter. Surely, all factual things are limited but the purpose of their application is reasonably infinite. New reason can be found for any achievement, enveloped in a framework of technology. It just has to be developed—literally meaning rolled out—in an inventive way—by assigning a novel reason to the given facts. In order to obtain inventions from technology, there are mainly two ways to proceed: One is the development of a particular technology, for instance a particular product, a specific process, certain market sales or peculiar organizations. The other is development of a technology in general, for instance nanotechnology, biotechnology, electronic technology or cyber technology. The search for novel features of technologies in turn leads to innovative improvements through new findings. The search for these technological findings concerns the solutions to problems— the word “problem” means literally a return, a resistance or an antagonism. Scientifically, each practical solution is a compromise between reasonable applications and their factual execution. And, as explained before, both are quite opposed to each other: You can never get all you can imagine, by matter of fact. So, there is always an expectation of a problem and an associated approximation to the expectations. The general way to arrive at inventions is a development of apparent problems (see Figure 4.2).

justified business DEVELOPMENT perceptible execution

< problem >

believable application

Figure 4.2: The development of a solution by the bridging of a problem.

124 

 4 Invention

The initial challenge for any invention is the detection and the elaboration of the hidden problem. Again, the method of elenctic turns out to be indispensable as a basic tool for this. The conviction that there is still some problem ignored is a start for improvement and a subsequent maieutic birth of a solution, as has been previously described for science. The intermediate position of the problem between fact and reason can be discerned by the very wording because there is never a problem as an own objective but always a problem “with” an objective. Again the objectivation is the crucial problem to solve for an inventive solution. In that sense, an innovation has just to surmount the barrier of ignorance between a reasonable intention, on one side, and a factual objectivation, on the other. The mere impression of and a statement about an intention without a feasible way of execution is not an invention. And an intention, which turns out to be already available, is also not an invention, although in many cases it happens that the solution for a problem is reinvented. This may be helpful for the initial intention but disappointing for its initiator, who cannot be called an inventor or even an originator any more. The origin of a problem is mostly a certain discontent in accepting things as they are. Psychological investigations reveal that this human habit of doubt is hereditary and appears from childhood. And scientifically, the search for new problems can be aligned to the intersections of entelechy—appearance, impression, understanding, and comprehensibility, as explained by these terms previously in this book. Problems do often appear during a search for the original cause of a discontent. A problem is the effect of many causes, as anyone knows who has tried to find the cause for an uncommon noise in their house or vehicle. When such a problem occurs, one tries to find a possible difference to the common by an inspection of the factual objects to have a reason to work on. More systematically, the quest for hidden causes is supported by a structural graph. The structural hierarchy of the graph resembles a fishbone with the backbone stem as the basic effect in the middle and the ribs branching off as the causes to the sides. This cause-and-effect analysis was described by Ishikawa around 1940 in order to itemize and to visualize the search for hidden causes and provide problematic topics to work on [79]. In the first level the probable causes are often revealed by experience and have been standardized as the 4M, standing for originated by manpower, machines, materials, or methods. Furthermore, there are some plausible extensions for that, like 5M in manufacturing adding measurement, or even 8M adding management, money, and milieu, that is, caused by the environment. The veritable search for the hidden causes of problems starts at the next level. By a successive structuring of the causes for the causes and so on, the elementary features of a technological system become clearer. For instance, the primary cause for a problem by machines may itself be caused by a secondary cause of vibration, aging, energy consumption or insufficient reproducibility. And the aging itself may be caused by mechanical, electrical, magnetic, optical, thermal, chemical or biological causes.

4.1 Development 

 125

Similar to the method of 5-Whys, as mentioned previously in chapter 2 about elenctic, a deeper understanding makes the causes for a technological discontent evident. When the causes for an appearance of problems are identified, their different effects can be elaborated. Forewarned is forearmed, as the saying goes. The usual approach is to assess the accumulated impact of the causes on their effects. The pairwise comparison is commonly applied to support this. Therefore, the reasonable causes are listed on the vertical column of a table one below the other. And on the horizontal line the expected effects are indicated. At each intersection a comparative number is estimated indicating the extent of influence of cause on the respective effect. For instance, the color of a vehicle has reasonably a negligible effect on its energy consumption but a considerable effect on customer satisfaction. Inversely, the weight of a vehicle affects considerably its energy consumption but reasonably lesser the customer satisfaction—unless the customer is concerned about energy consumption and knows the influence of the weight. Indeed, the particular challenge of the analysis of a discontent is the apparent interference of different causes. An uncommon noise in a vehicle can be caused by the stiffness or by the shape of a part, but eventually it can be influenced by the weight, too. Hence, there is a certain danger in becoming entangled and hopelessly lost in the plurality of complications and the complexity of interlinked causes and effects. Therefore, it is advisable to stay at first-order impressions—unless it is really significant. After finding the probable cause, a complete understanding is required to develop a novel line between an intention and its objectivation. Solve one problem to save hundreds of them, is a related Chinese saying. Indeed, a wise selection of actions is advisable, because there are problems with considerable side effects, on one hand, as there are always effects, which seem unworthy of any action, on the other. Hence, it is a considerable challenge for any inventor to predict the important effects. A “wise” understanding is required since nobody knows for sure in advance as to what would turn out to be important later. A Pareto chart is a powerful tool to visualize the relevance of causes for the solution to a problem. It is generally related to the Pareto principle mentioned before, that is, the usual correlation of an inferior amount of causes to a superior amount of effects. As a rule of thumb, about 80% of effects are due to just about 20% of causes. The result of a Pareto chart is relative and therefore stays invariant in regard to the amount of detected causes. Indeed, the Pareto principle is one of the rare scientific laws, which are invariant of scale—as long as the compared setting stays the same. Thereby, it permits a prioritization of an arbitrary setting without an exhaustive analysis. Of course, the coverage will improve if the setting is larger, but the rough structure of the comparison always stays the same. For example, vibrations are the main source of noise, in spite of the possibility that harshness, weight, power, and welding may be further causes. And this relation stays true even if further causes like gravity, acceleration, shape or construction are taken into account. The understanding by a Pareto chart is useful in providing a reliable selection.

126 

 4 Invention

Comprehension is the last step in entelechy as presented in this book. Each problem has two sides: our side and the wrong one—is a popular Swiss saying. Or, according to a Chinese saying: Each problem entails many others. In consequence, the intention to solve a problem may cause other problems, which may even contradict the initial purpose. And the solutions to problems often become a source of further problems that need to be solved. By such a cascade of problems an unmanageable plurality is soon achieved. Additionally, the problematic setting varies a lot according to the people concerned or their respective differences in interests. And a solution found for a problem may turn out as a rather delicate mission to handle. Therefore, a comprehensible approach seems mandatory. Systematically, a perpetual loop or an infinite cycle of reflection and revision of the overall process is indicated. Similar to a design approach, each cause has to be ranked initially by a paired comparison—that is, with regard to all the other causes— before a subsequent pairwise comparison with regard to the intended effects provokes insurmountable complexity. In this way clarity can be obtained, which cause is driving the desired effects, or has to be driven for a desired effect. It is advisable that the different promoters agree to such a selective comparison in a concerted workshop, which subsequently facilitates the whole process. For example, if a ranking of the probable causes is agreed, the correlation can be subjected to primary tests of trial and error, thereby providing an objectivation of the degree of the intended effects. In case results are satisfactory, this would lead to a quick solution. If not, this would lead to an endless loop of trials. Although a control loop is a successful tool to keep a process running, it may reveal itself as a critical tool in bringing a process to an end. For example, the cause of a noise may be due to a vibration and may turn out to be provoked by some material instability because of mechanical fatigue, which may be caused by a vibration from a noise from somewhere else. Apparently, the investigation of problems is generally accompanied by an arduous learning curve of appearance, impression and understanding, which finally allows a superior comprehension of the whole. This is why the human ability of general comprehension becomes an ultimate prerequisite for the development of innovative ideas and inventions. Other approaches to identify methods for development can be scientifically assigned to the quadruple settings of scientific categories, as given before. For instance, one may resort to the Kantian distinction of pure reason by quality, quantity, relation, and modality. In particular, a proper and timely quality management is useful to detect problems. And the quantity of experiences can be compiled and used as a general checklist of problems. A comparison of the various patent claims will enable to indicate the underlying principles of inventions for problem solutions. And the manifold modalities of a problem can be explored by its morphology. Lesson 23 Inventions mainly resolve technological problems!

4.1 Development 

 127

4.1.1 Quality Failure is only the opportunity to begin again, this time more intelligently. There is no disgrace in honest failure; there is disgrace in fearing to fail. statement from: The Magazine of Business #52 by Henry Ford 1927

The word “quality” stands originally for consistence by composition and character. In modern business, quality has become an entire world of management approaches. Everything is assigned to quality, and quality management concerns everything. In this sense, quality itself has obtained the exclusivity of a novel entity, that is, a conceived appearance of its own, like a personality or a corporation, a nation or an ecosystem. Therefore, quality concerns economy, improvements, disruptions, and technology, as well as management of projects and marketing, innovations, and inventions, on its own. The development of quality can again be aligned to sections of appearance and impression, understanding and comprehension—due to the divided line of entelechy. Literally, the meaning of quality can be described as a natural constitution, a characteristic composition or an apparent consistency. Thereby, it seems to cover all aspects for a due objectivation, from reasonable intentions to factual measurements. Starting with quality inspection and testing as the most factual approach of appearance, each operation of an enterprise is assigned to a sizable quality, representing its particular value. Inversely, in business everything of worth has a quality to be measured. By this chain of argumentation, a quality problem appears when something seems inept for evaluation or measurement. Such a problem is called muda, a Japanese word for waste and dissipation. Consequently, an elimination of muda is an inventive act for a quality problem and provides some improvement. For example, the reproducibility of an action is an object of quality. It can be measured by the definition of physical appearances to meet, for example, by size, weight, duration, heat, conductivity, visibility or amount. And it can be evaluated by statistical methods according to the achieved precision. Problems occur when the distribution of the measured results reaches beyond an economically tolerable spread. This kind of quality control by sampling or by systematic scanning and testing is the original way of quality management. It makes failures evident and by means of statistics a difference can be discerned between random and systematic occurrence. This is important because repeated failures have supposedly a common cause to be eliminated. In particular, by Six Sigma or 6σ a special approach is followed to exclude deviations from tolerance. The standard deviation σ (sigma) is defined as the statistical variance in regard to an expectancy value µ (see Figure 4.3). For a normal distribution, that is, symmetrically bell-shaped, the standard deviation around the expectancy value µ ± σ covers about 68.27% of all measurements, which appears significant. If the tolerance interval around the expectancy value covers about 95.45% of all measurements, it has

128 

relative incidence

 4 Invention

inferior limit of tolerance

superior limit of tolerance

6σ

2σ expectancy value

1σ

measurement value

Figure 4.3: Objectivation of problems as defaults outside the tolerance of expectancy.

two standard deviations µ ± 2σ. And if just one measurement is discovered outside the tolerance for about 507 million opportunities, it corresponds to a Six Sigma cover. In the 1990s, many enterprises have adopted the strategy to strive for 6σreproducibility in their business. And an increasing amount of business processes have been determined by measurable quality factors. This led to a perpetual detection of faults and failures, and the hunt for the solutions for the respective problems. Many more methods for the solution of these problems were elaborated or included and Six Sigma has become a label for quality management methods itself. The amount of defects per measurement opportunities (DPMO) is a factual indicator of problems and an approach to finding problems and inventive solutions. The next approach to quality problems is the impression of safety, because an enterprise has also to avoid dangers or threats for all business processes. Accordingly, safety quality can be found almost everywhere, that is, for products and for processes, sales and the organization, development and the whole system. And the related problems may be already found, when an endangerment of actions turns out to be reasonable during a regular inspection. In particular, the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) is a formalized method to eliminate threats before they may appear. In this sense a failure is everything, which may harm or damage a business, for example, a construction fault, a manufacturing error, a defect in the product or a mistake in management. At first, the possible failures are identified by an analysis of probable causes and their pairwise comparison with the failed effects, as already described for problems in general. The selection of significant problems is enhanced by an introduction of three aspects of damage (SOD), that is, the severity S according to the amount of probable loss, the occurrence O according to the number of probable cases of damage and the detectability D according to the chance to identify and clear damage before it can happen. These three aspects are assessed by a performance number ranging between 1 for negligible and 10 for extreme. The multiplication of these three numbers gives a risk priority number (RPN) ranging from 1 to 1,000 and distinguishing lower risks from higher risks. In a final step

4.1 Development 

 129

suitable solutions have to be conceived to diminish the higher risks below a threshold of about 100. In this way, a direct access to problems and their solutions by inventions is accomplished. For a patent claim, it has to be checked if there is some general relevance of the solution found or if it is just about an isolated case.1 After qualities of appearance and impression, a further approach to quality problems is the understanding of accomplishment. Here, the aim of an enterprise is to comply with customer requirements through its products and services, not just by factual precision and safety but also by a reasonable functionality—however imprecise and vague this may appear. Appreciations may be as valuable as the factual performance—and occasionally a cause for excessive satisfaction, as already explained for design by the Kano model. And an understanding of the related problems of functional quality can lead to the development of extraordinary inventions. In particular, the quality function deployment (QFD) contains a vast investigation about the accomplishment of business affairs. Similar to design processes, it consists of methodical combinations of paired and pairwise comparisons. Indeed, the means of accomplishing customer satisfaction are not always discernible. First of all, one needs a list of performance capabilities of the enterprise as well as a list of customer demands or requirements of the market. And both lists are ranked by paired comparison, as previously described for the analysis of problems. Then, the coping of capabilities and demands is established by pairwise comparison on a table chart. Additionally, a coupling of the items by enhancement or by conflict interactions can be included, which then appears as a kind of rooftop or an oriel to the table chart and forms the so-called House of Quality [80]. The effects and defects of accomplishment become discernible by the very formation of this house. By weighted accumulation of the comparative numbers attributed within the chart a reasonable number is derived to change or to influence the setting. And by a variation of the intensity ways to enhance the desired impact can be explored. The direct orientation according to the efforts and features of an enterprise permits to localize specific problems of functionality. Thereby cooperation becomes transparent and the usual conflicts by objection are avoided. The resolutions should be traceable for all stakeholders involved and delegated to appropriate responsibilities. And such a functional assignment should be ready to generate outstanding improvements and inventions. The last step in quality management is a comprehensive approach to reliability. This includes an impact from factors far beyond the limits of business as usual, for example, the work moral, the job market, the infrastructure, the suppliers, the legal framework or the environment. Even sociological, technological, ecological, and political circumstances have an impact on the quality of company performance and macroeconomic success. An examination of the relationship between all these factors may reveal problems beyond the influence of a single company, like a public 1 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular method. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

130 

 4 Invention

promotion of technologies to develop new fields of business. Obviously, this concerns the industrial location in a rather general way. In particular, by total quality management (TQM) a widespread quality strategy of business is comprised, which sometimes exceeds the requirement of instantaneous economic success. The background for this approach is the arguable comprehension that success will occur almost automatically if the system includes sufficient quality. Indeed, when the quality of a system includes the reliability of economic achievements, this seems appropriate. For instance, the pursuit of technology and of innovation as a business objective leads to inventions, simply as a consequence of this general quality approach. In total, quality management is sort of a power train for the promotion of inventions in order to solve problems. An enhancement of quality helps to raise the company value and eliminate waste in an inventive way. With respect to unspecific problems the solutions can be developed in a systematic manner with the help of distinct quality criteria. Lesson 24 Quality management promotes inventions!

4.1.2 Checklist Quantity is wanted! The greater the number of ideas, the more the likelihood of useful ideas. Brainstorming Ground Rule #3 by Alex Osborn 1942

In 1919, Alex Osborn cofounded the BBDO, which is still a global market-leading company for communications, publicity, and marketing. Later he founded the Creative Education Foundation and instituted at the University of Buffalo, New York, the first research institute for creativity, worldwide. In 1942 he described the method of brainstorming [81], developed previously at BBDO, and in 1957 he furnished a checklist with 62 questions to stimulate the creation of solutions. The sheer quantity of questions seems better suited for a playful search of solutions, for example, by a raffle drawing of lots giving random advice for further elaboration. By application of a general question to a particular topic one will likely find a random solution. For a more systematic scampering, the questions of Osborn’s checklist were summarized to a set of seven basic suggestions with the mnemonic acronym SCAMPER for substitute, combine, adapt, modify, put to other uses, eliminate, and reverse [82]. Later, this set was slightly enlarged by another M for magnify and another R for rearrange. Scientifically, this method is borne out by the lifelong experience and heuristic impressions of its prominent originator, that is, the successful creative director

4.1 Development 

 131

Osborn. But in application, this method is inversely used as a hermeneutic setting for the creation of further individual experience. The inverted proceeding is then used as a superior instruction to pursue novel factual solutions. As the checklist or its acronym SCAMPER is loaded with a considerable amount of practical diversity, it seems to be inversely reasonable that the diversity of most cases is covered by it. For an application, some exercise is required in order to familiarize oneself with the respective meanings of the different items on the checklist. And a particular exemplification is appropriate to enhance one’s understanding. In detail: The first suggestion concerns the substitution of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 1–9 as follows: Who else instead? What else instead? Other ingredient? Other material? Other process? Other power? Other place? Other approach? Other tone of voice? For example, there may be seat covers or plugs, a boggle or a straw man as replacements. There may be wall panels to shield heat or noise, computer animation instead of stop-motion cartoons or plastic cutlery instead of silverware. The second suggestion concerns the combination of things. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 10–14 as follows: How about a blend, an alloy, an assortment, an ensemble? Combine units? Combine purposes? Combine appeals? Combine ideas? For example, there are convertible sofa beds or limousines, eraser pencils, and smartphones with uncountable applets. A multipurpose hall or a painting with weather and gravel protection belongs to combinations as well as fiber reinforced plastic or cloths with semipermeable membranes for moisture control. The third suggestion concerns the adaption of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 15–19 as follows: What else is like this? What other idea does this suggest? Does the past offer any parallel? What could I copy? Whom could I emulate? For example, bionic adaptations are helpful for airfoils, tire patterns and truss constructions. Camouflage, the lotus effect and vacuum cups are adapted from nature as are Velcro fasteners or a sponge. The fourth suggestion concerns the modification of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 20–22 as follows: Give a new twist? Change the meaning, color, motion, sound, odor, form, shape? Choose other shapes? For example, there are mufflers for noise absorption and surfactants for emulsification, there are turbochargers for compressed combustion and microfiber for adsorption, there are sunglasses for glare and bimetal contacts for switches. Another suggestion with M concerns a magnification of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 23–34 as follows: What to add? More time? Greater frequency? Stronger? Higher? Longer? Thicker? Extra Value? Plus ingredient? Duplicate? Multiply? Exaggerate? For example, an auxiliary engine, a spare wheel and sacrificial electrodes are supplementary components. Wear-resistant coatings and high-tensile carbon fibers

132 

 4 Invention

provide enhanced material performance. Saw teeth and rotary knives increase the frequency of cutting actions. Data backup and fail-safe construction by redundant trusses, conducts, walls or signals are exaggerations to prevent failure. The fifth suggestion is to put something to other uses, that is, to reassign something to another purpose. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 35 and 36: What are the new ways to use it? What are the other uses if modified? For example, computers are used for calculations, writing, data storage and many other things like game consoles. Resources are obtained by recycling, dust is a source for microparticles, passenger cabin become human habitats and swords can be employed as plowshares. The sixth suggestion concerns the elimination of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 37–47: What to subtract? Smaller? Condensed? Miniature? Lower? Shorter? Lighter? Omit? Streamline? Split up? Understate? For example, there is elimination of space by nanotechnology or microchips, and elimination of nutritional value by low-fat, low-carb or unsweetened food. Lightweight constructions reduce material usage by employing functional surfaces, truss, and paneling. Abdication of carburant and nuclear energy are mainstream efforts as well as debt reduction. The seventh suggestion concerns the reversion or inversion of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 48–55 as follows: Transpose positive and negative? How about opposites? Turn it backward? Turn it upside down? Reverse roles? Change shoes? Turn tables? Turn other cheek? For example, the clearing of a forest aisle can prevent fire from spreading in a similar way as scorched-earth policy can stop aggressors. The detrimental compression of diesel engines bestows the advantageous effect of self-ignition, and an eddy current brake can recuperate kinetic energy as electricity. A predetermined breaking point helps to fence the damage and facilitates repair. And after an extensive depreciation through aging, products may become precious again as old-timers or antiques. The other suggestion with R concerns a rearrangement of something. In Osborn’s checklist this corresponds to questions 56–62: Interchange components? Other pattern? Other layout? Other sequence? Transpose cause and effect? Change pace? Change schedule? For example, the optical setting is suitably rearranged for telescope tubes, periscopes or varifocals. Stacking chairs are constructed to be stowed away after use. Reverse engineering is the inverted approach of technical development by previous virtual simulation and testing. Some of the examples can be obviously assigned as the output of other suggestions, too. And maybe, the original understanding of questions differs from the actual linguistic usage. Thereby, a particular word may cause various solutions. For example, at his time Osborn predominantly knew “another tone of voice” (9), the sound and tone of the human voice, which has meanwhile been considerably extended by use of electronic appliances. The transformation of the language itself is subjected to substitution, combination, adaption, modification, reassignment, elimination, and rearrangement.

4.1 Development 

 133

Thus, in the end the use of checklists stays to be only a suggestive stimulus in order to spur ideas for solutions and the develop inventions by quantity. Yet, in case of success, who bothers? Lesson 25 Scampering with questions provides inventive solutions!

4.1.3 Principles Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. If we could learn from mere experience, the stones of London would be wiser than its wisest men. Maxims for Revolutionists # 127–128 by George Bernhard Shaw 1903

In 1946, Genrich Altshuller worked as employee at the Soviet patent office and was concerned with the classification of the customary originator certificates.2 In contrast to the International Patent Classification (IPC), which refers to the disciplines of application, he started to conceive an evaluation scheme according to patterns of solutions. From a set of about 200,000 certificates he selected some 40,000 claims, to which he accredited a considerable inventive accomplishment. He started to classify the revealed solutions, which he could confine to just 40 Inventive Principles for almost 99.8% of them—the rest were apparently caused by novel discoveries [83]. In consequence to an advisory comment addressed to Stalin about the status of inventors in the USSR he was arrested in 1950 and subsequently sent to a Gulag correction camp, where he advanced the evaluation with the help of other convicts, anyway. Although, he was set free in 1953, after Stalin’s death, and he published his Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TIPS) in 19563 within the USSR, this approach became publicly known only in 1976 to the rest of the world [84]. Meanwhile, the amount of due patent evaluations is declared “by millions” although Altshuller himself conceived originally another ten inventive principles. Scientifically, the necessity and deficit of individual understanding and interpretation of words by translation and by linguistic usage is the same as previously for Osborn’s checklist [85]. However, the laborious compilation of such a huge database and its strict general evaluation is undoubtedly more reliable than a mere extract of

2 Please remember that in the frame of the Soviet doctrine there was no intellectual property accredited. 3 The original acronym is TRIZ for the Russian wording Teoriya Resheniya Izobretatelskikh Zadach.

134 

 4 Invention

individual experience. It has achieved the status of a theory, induced by systematic exploration, which is appropriate to derive inverse scientific results by deduction. In some countries the theory is the object of special studies and has been considerably enlarged by further doctrines, like the algorithm ARIZ and a substance-field analysis, the laws of technical systems evolution as well as a matrix of contradictions of technical parameters and separation principles for research purposes, which will be explained later. In order to exploit the extendend set of 40 inventive principles, similar approaches have been conceived as for the quantity of questions by Osborn’s checklist. One way is to select, train, teach, and develop skilled workmen as in the second principle of scientific management, as explained. Or, the playful approach by raffle drawing of lots may be helpful, probably supported by the stochastic Monte Carlo method. A comprehensive approach can be used to summarize the different principles by classes in order to obtain a survey. This way, the plurality becomes better manageable and accessible to a quicker selection of suitable hints. Subsequently, a convenient split into four fields of interests is suggested. The respective numbering of the original 40 inventive parameters is indicated in parentheses below: 4 The first suggestion concerns structural changes by segmentation (1), by removal (2), by local quality (3), by asymmetry (4), by integration (7), by spheroidality (14), by dimensional change (17), by coatings and shells (30), by porous material (31) or by composite material (40). The second suggestion concerns damage prevention by preliminary counteraction (9), by preliminary action (10), by prevention (11), by balance of forces (12), by reversed functionality (13), by periodic action (19), by skipping (21), by feedback (23), by intermediation (24), by substitution (26), by homogeneity (33) or by inert media (39). The third suggestion concerns the enhancement of efficiency by merging (5), by universality (6), by dynamic sampling (15), by rationalization (16), by continuity (20), by conversion (22), by self-service (25), by disposables (27) or by recovery (34). The fourth suggestion concerns the enhancement of effectiveness by counterweight (8), by vibration (18), by substitution of mechanics (28), by fluidics (29), by coloring (32), by change of material property (35), by phase transition (36), by thermal expansion (37) or by strong oxidants (38). As for any patent claim, a reasonably skilled expert is required to understand and use these principles properly. And admittedly, some terms are expressed differently due to the experience and profession of the author. Furthermore, the original definitions are in Russian and belong to another technological status, sociological

4 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular method. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

4.1 Development 

 135

occurrence

change of material property preliminary action segmentation of objects substitution of mechanics removal of a parts dynamic sampling periodic action vibration coloring reversed functionality … … … . . .

system, and political situation of another age. Therefore, the terms have to be exemplified in detail like previously the quantity of questions in Osborn’s checklist, too. Scientifically, a reasonable truth has to be justified by a logical relation to facts. And this justification is approved or disapproved by the community of people concerned. Nowadays, the Internet provides a global platform to share these concerns almost instantaneously [86]. The reassignment of the found principles is still a subject of hermeneutic interpretation. Another approach to use the extent of inventive principles in an efficacious way is the application of the Pareto principle, that is, to try out first that minority of principles that covers the majority of the patents. And this reduced selection can be exemplified in more detail. According to the investigations of Livotov and Petrov about 60% of solutions can be attributed to just 10 of the 40 principles (see Figure 4.4) [87]. This is a lower ratio than the expected 80–20 rule, but is nevertheless a start to begin with, for instance, as follows: Most patents are claimed for change of material property (35). In detail, this affects harshness, tenacity, density, elasticity, heat capacity, conductivity, melting and boiling point, vapor pressure, dissolubility and diffusivity, surface tension, corrodibility, combustibility, magnetizability, sound velocity, smell, taste, or color. For instance, the property of steel is strongly affected by the microstructural texture, which can be adjusted by tempering, molding, precipitation or implementation of components. The second highest claim of patents is for preliminary action (10). In detail, this affects an activation of a process in due time or an appropriate preparation of a device in order to concert an action. For instance, an instant coffee or soup is prepared to be ready in a minute and standard labels are preprinted in order to set marks quickly.

inventive principle Figure 4.4: Pareto analysis for the impact of inventive principles.

136 

 4 Invention

The third highest claim is for segmentation (1). In detail, this affects a subdivision of large objects, the implementation of joints or a splitting of objects into independent components. For instance, furniture is traded as assembly kits and personal computers are configured by modules on pin boards. The fourth place in this ranking is the substitution of mechanics (28) by application of electric, magnetic, electrodynamic, optic, acoustic or thermodynamic effects for static fixing, elastic stabilization, dynamic motion or other reactions. For example, a magnetic stirrer can operate in autoclave vessels and light barriers can limit the brightness of light without any hitch in a given area. The fifth place is for the removal of a part (2) by separation of an obstructive or dispensable part to concentrate an effect, or directly by extraction of a useful part to provide a pure effect. For example, decaf or nonalcoholic beverages permit taste without side effects, and mixing consoles enable pure musical pleasure. The sixth place is for dynamic sampling (15), understood as decomposability, exchangeability, formability, agility, flexibility, elasticity, foldability, and other abilities to comply with changed requirements. For example, an articulated bus is more apt to find a way through narrow streets and a solar sail can be shot into space compactly. The seventh place is for periodic action (19) by impulses with regular, irregular, or altered frequency and adjusted intervals and interruptions. For example, a flash indicator and a siren procure appropriate attention; and a hammer drill is even more effective than a percussion drill. The eighth place is similar to the sixth and is for vibrations (18) by mechanical, acoustic, piezoelectric or electromagnetic oscillatory pulses, however, this time with harmonic waves and related resonant or dissonant effects. For example, vacillations provide fluidization for the transport of granular and bulk material; and ultrasound permits a fast and thorough cleaning of rigid surfaces. The ninth place is for suitable coloring (32) by saturation, shading, opacity or transparency due to illumination, discoloration, self-luminous or polarized surfaces. For example, ultraviolet markers or pigments enable absorption or reflection of light or heat radiation to achieve enhanced or reduced visibility or temperature. The tenth place is for reversed functionality (13) by compensation of an action with the reaction or a cause with its effects, like a motion with its countermotion. For example, the usual process of shopping at stores is reversed by mail-order selling; a production line conveys work pieces to the worker; and an arched bridge uses the force exerted by its proper weight to fasten and stabilize the construction. Again, the linguistic usage is a limit for a proper application of Altshuller’s inventive principles. But in comparison to Osborn’s checklist, it is broadly supported and grounded by patents—and not just an experienced comprehension. Consequently, the inventive principles supply a suitable argumentation for the description and justification of the patent claim. The required inventive notion is generally one of the inventive principles. However, inventive problem solutions

4.1 Development 

 137

outside the framework of TIPS cannot be expected, for instance a scientific discovery or a simple reassignment, as included in Osborn’s checklist. The principles are especially convenient for objectivation and patenting, although the checklist is more extensive. Lesson 26 Inventions can be principally derived from an analysis of patents!

4.1.4 Morphology See how it’s done!—Make ten of one, and let two be,—make even three, then you’ll be rich.—Cast out the four!—Now heed the witch:—from five and six make seven and eight, and now you’re done;—Then nine is one,—And ten is none.That is the witches’ one-times-one. from: Faust, First Part of the Tragedy, Scene 7 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1808 [1]

Morphology—literally standing for the art of deformation and distortion—is an unlimited option for the development of inventions by variation and permutation. The sheer amount of categorical combinations is a thorough way to compile problems and construe possible solutions for testing. Fritz Zwicky was a Swiss astrophysicist who elaborated, at the California Institute of Technology, the theories of dark matter in 1933, of supernovae and neutron stars in 1934, on gravitational lenses in 1937 and the gravitational collapse of black holes in 1939. After retirement he published in 1968 a book about his concept of a General Morphological Analysis [88]—also known as the Zwicky box. It consists of a complete breakdown of a topic in order to reconstruct it in many different ways. The process is supported by a table sheet or “box”. It can be briefly explained by an entelechy of four consecutive steps, as presented subsequently here (see Figure 4.5). The first step is a morphological description of a topic. It is useful to start with a most general framing of the scope in order to include as many boundary conditions and side effects as possible. And it is important to take time for extensive discussion and familiarization with the topic. Take, for example, the topic of dirt. In general, dirt can be simply summarized as “matter at wrong places”, like the Nobel laureate Lenard stated in 1905. Or, it can be explained at length, like the prized Essay about Dirt by Enzensberger in 1968: “Clean is neither nice nor well, clean is bright cold white. Dirty is low and close, clean is high and everywhere. Dirty is still, at least, but clean is nothing, clean is dirty, angry and sick, clean is mighty, clean never disappears: so be instructed.” [89] Apparently, the topic of dirt can be conceived in many different ways.

138 

 4 Invention

test: A3-B1-C2-D5-E1

1. morphological description

class B class C class D class E

feature A1

feature A2

feature B1

feature A4

feature B2

feature C1 feature D1

feature A3

feature C2 feature D2

feature B3 feature C3

feature D3

feature E1

feature C4

feature D4 feature E2

feature D5

4. morphological combinations

2. morphological classes

class A

3. morphological features Figure 4.5: The Zwicky box for a general morphological analysis.

The second step is a morphological classification. Everything consists of certain materials in various forms with different effects for some purpose. It is useful to find independent classes, that is, dimensions, criteria, or factors that can be affected by provable means. For example, dirt may be classified according to its chemical components, size distribution, impacts, and origins. Again, the understanding of dirt may by quite variable. The third step is a statement about the morphological features in appearance, such as solid, liquid, gaseous or even ionized with respective physical, chemical or biological properties. Now, it is useful to discern the concrete characteristics, that is, specifications or peculiarities. For example, dirt may consist of ceramic, metal or organic substances—in the form of grains, fibers, flocculent or porous bodies— and it may cause mechanical forces, electrical charges, optical coloring, or thermal reactions—which may be useful, detrimental, irritating or imperceptible for different purposes. The fourth and final step—in order to obtain an inventive idea—is the morphological combination for each feature of a class with all other features and their combination of other classes. Already for four features in four classes a number of 44 = 256 combinatory settings are achieved, because each feature has four possible combinations with the features of another class, and all these combinations have four possible combinations with the next class, and this is once again four times the next. Hence, it is useful to start with some reasonable tests—or random scamper—in order to get a feel about improbable exclusions or probable alignments. A systematic check of all possible combinations is seldom feasible. For example, dirt may be

4.2 Research 

 139

restricted to solid dust particles on solid surfaces, which become optically visible and challenge the appreciation of customers. Hence, the related problems are considerably limited for further exploration, for example, where the dirt comes from, on which surfaces it becomes visible, in which way the optical perceptibility works and what is the tolerance of customer appreciation. For instance, a practiced solution since the 1970s is a suitable combination of shagreen embossments on the surface, like grain leather, which hide dust and elicit high appreciation from the customer for such a lavishly designed surface. Scientifically, a morphological analysis furnishes neither facts nor reason to start with, as do the approaches to quality, checklist or principles, previously mentioned. It is a blueprint method, universally applicable for all kinds of factual statements or reasonable topics. Its entelechy starts in a deductive way, that is, the comprehension of a topic is subsequently achieved by factorization. In that way, a morphological analysis yields rather a discovery than an invention. Hence, for a patent the inventive merit has to be circumscribed by a further process of mental effort to select and specify the solution to a problem. The outstanding advantage of this approach is its applicability to almost everything. Probably, it is just a formal description of the natural way of human understanding. Simple solutions to problems are obtained just as extremely original detections. Nevertheless, a particular originality corresponds to a respective investment of time and tests because a notably fortunate coincidence is needed or an eminent extensive investigation is required as a start. In that sense, Osborn’s checklist and Altshuller’s principles can be considered as results of a universal morphological investigation concerning inventions. Hence, a particular morphological analysis is more adapted to a certain topic, yet without the methodological support of the other approaches. Lesson 27 A general analysis provides inventive approaches!

4.2 Research Bolder, than to explore the unknown, can it be to doubt the known. attributed to the natural scientist Alexander von Humboldt 1769–1859

A search concerns generally unknown things, whereas a research consists of a repeated investigation of the known things in order to arrive at a deeper understanding. Accordingly, development activities generally concern the search for an improvement of the existing things by adding previously unknown aspects. But research

140 

 4 Invention

activities examine rather the possibility for disruptions by a changed comprehension of the known aspects. Please note that research is just a particular form of search, and a disruption is just a particular form of an improvement—and both are about the development of unknown and re-known understanding. Therefore, it is called research AND development (R&D)—and not research or development. Yet, as research aims for a disruption with a creative destruction, the target of the related research projects is a factual exclusivity comprising a substitution. The proportion between substituting research and sustaining developments can be understood by the previously revealed checklist for development, since substitution is just one of the nine suggestions for scampering there. Indeed, more than 90% of the inventions are due to additional improvements and only a minority is due to substitutions. This statement is also supported by Altshuller’s evaluation of the inventive principles for development, as revealed. Scientifically, the search for unknown things is called transcendent, literally meaning exceeding, stepping or passing over the factual restrictions by implementation of other facts, like novel materials, new processes, substituting agents or disrupting technologies. In contrast, the subsequent research of the acquainted knowledge includes the special challenge to find an alternative mindset. This is called transcendental, meaning the overcoming of a previous understanding, comprehension, and related reasoning.5 The different transitions are fundamentally discernible by the point of view, because a transcendent discovery researches for new facts, whereas a transcendental invention looks out for a new reasoning (see Figure 4.6). The proposal for a research project in natural science is mostly transcendent, because it is to explain which techniques and technical equipment are required to study a topic and which results are expected. For example, discoveries in genetics have provided outstanding results for jellyfishes in the past few years. At Papua, New

justified business

transcendent perceptible execution

RESEARCH

believable application

transcendental

Figure 4.6: The research for new connections between facts and reason.

5 Please note that the word “transcendental” is often employed for esoteric or religious purposes, too.

4.2 Research 

 141

Guinea, the genus Mastigas was realized to have symbiotically merged largely with zooplankton and meanwhile survives autonomously by mere photosynthesis in an enclosed lake. And the species Turritopsis nutricula at the Mediterranean was recognized to degrade by starving to an embryonic polyp—apt to mature again—and therefore seems to live forever. Both facts are based on newly found compositions and properties, though they have been in existence for a long time. In contrast, the proposal for a research project in marketing is mostly transcendental, because it is to explain which needs and interests are pursued to explore a case and which benefits are achievable. For example, technological progress in neuroscience has provided fantastic insight in decision-making processes. Mirror neurons are activated by performance as much as by a mere observation of a process and, therefore, they can initialize imitation and empathy. The electric activity of the human brain can be registered and analyzed according to cerebral wave patterns in certain brain areas, which enables mind control of machines and also a limited mind reading, respectively. Both research approaches—transcendent and transcendental—have to provide some objectivation, because they are only considered true, when they are able to provide a fact in a reproducible way. For instance, the survival and the rebirth of jellyfish without food have to be proved. And the stimulation of empathy and of machine control by electrical activation of human neurons has to be verified. New theories without proof or any verification are considered as speculative or as hypothetic as long as a suitable test has been performed. In this sense, research can be considered as a particular way of problem solving, because the statement of the problem is somewhat general. While development is based on the search for the solution of a problem within a given topic, research implies a previous problematization of the topic by transcendent and transcendental expectations. Therefore, innovations due to research contain new theories or novel paradigms, which are occasionally accompanied by a disruptive exclusivity and unique selling proposition. Hence, a statement of paradigmatic change is deliberately applied in marketing to justify a higher innovation reward. The Principle of Hope has become a familiar dictum originated by Bloch in the 1950s [90]. And it seems advisable to follow this advice in research projects because the prospected results are vague and challenged twice: First, by the inherent risk of missing the target, and, second, by the supplementary threat of a changed purpose. Mostly, there is just an uncertain initial hope to provide an unspecified novelty, before it becomes clear, where the real problems are located. Therefore, a concrete utopia is introduced, meaning an imaginary thing called “utopia”, which is, however, already anticipated by some human notion. According to this, the mere hope of accomplishment can provide an inventive solution before a problem has been stated. Bloch furnishes in the fourth chapter of his book a vast amount of examples from medicine, technology, architecture, geography, arts, and many other disciplines. They

142 

 4 Invention

confirm the effect of a concrete utopia and make it seem plausible that the human quest is not just a simple musing but an innate desire for the really better, comprising a claim of the factual unfinished and a hope for effective accomplishment. Bloch has stated that a concrete utopia beats the miserable facticity and, if the facts do not meet the theory, so much worse for the facts [91]. Epistemologically, hope is not supported by facts, initially. And so the illustration of the magic triangle is suspended on one side for any research. Basically, research projects rely only on a dim expectation that indeed things may turn out to be different than known so far. A researcher pursues novel scientific truths beyond the present state of science and technology. Research depends on a longing hope for new factual and reasonable truths. This can also be rather advantageous for research projects, because progress can advance alternatively from both sides: If the facts do not suit, the reason may be changed—and if the reasoning crystallizes to be different, new facts can be searched for. By some sort of canonical alternation, success is somehow always achieved. As previously mentioned, success factors for innovation projects may also rely on general “causes”, as introduced by Aristotle. This approach can be used to exemplify research approaches as follows: Material causes may be solids, liquids, gases or ionized plasma. They are always apt for research inventions, like novel materials for hightemperature superconductors in 1986, for neodymium supermagnets in 1982, for conductive polymers in 1977, or even the artificial chemical element 110, named Darmstadtium Ds in 2003. Each thing is based on some matter, even if being just conceived by a thought or by some software. In the end it is always bound to some hardware—like the human brain, at least. Formal causes may be points, lines, areas or bodies in space. They are equally fit for research inventions, like quantum point computing in 2015, carbon nanotube fiber filaments in 1991, graphene lattice areas in 2003 or the molecular body of carbon buckyballs named “fullerenes” in 1985. Each thing consists of a certain form, even if appearing as some bulk material. The layout of alloys or of complex products always contains an appropriate geometrical substructure. Efficient causes are due to the physical concepts of force, energy, power or action. They are also related to an inventive research, like lean production in 1988, organizational learning in 1990, multiple intelligences in 1983 or the Turing machine in 1948. Each process is based on an effect, even if the cause is not attributed to the processed thing itself but just to a measurement of its inherent properties. The processes of stability, motion, bonding, and reaction are always due to certain efficiency or some productivity, although it may be understood and related just to a virtual modeling of principles. But an appropriate effect is only achieved by the proper application of an efficient cause. Final causes are due to requirements, like usability, necessity, desire or wish. Nowadays, they become increasingly the subjects of inventive research, like worklife-balance, healthcare, sustainability or beauty. Each effect requires a certain perception, at the end, even if this appears rather subjective and not related to the

4.2 Research 

 143

object itself, but is due to its impacts. The purpose of an investment or of productivity is always due to an individual reasoning, sometimes shared with others. However, misleading exceptions, misunderstandings, prejudices, and some wishful thinking are also a considerable part of a final cause, whether it is about plastic surgery, metabolic balance, biological farming or assisted suicide. According to the increasing life expectancy of people, we are experiencing an era where the final cause seems generally more important for the economy, than all the other causes previously mentioned. In practice, the impact of these four Aristotelian causes is often underestimated for the conception, organization, planning, and controlling of a research project. Quite frequently, research is understood as a personal liberty to pursue own proclivities or gut instincts. In contrast, the four classical causes provide a fundamental and manageable subdivision for innovative research proposals, stating which material in which form by which efficiency is apt for which final purpose to solve a problem. Modern science after the Renaissance has slightly changed the understanding of causes: An experimental cause is literally a process to find out something substantial. A quantification cause is literally the attribution of a value to the formal appearance of something. A symmetry cause is literally the equability of different effects. And a systematic cause by classification is finally the apperception of a topic as a whole entity. As to an experimental research, it is accounted as a proof of fact, since the time when Galileo Galilei performed trials with falling objects to prove his kinematic theory. For instance, the intention of a fitness program to enhance health factors may be verified by measurable effects. Indeed, fitness training may reduce body mass and blood pressure, which subsequently may lead to an improved medical condition and higher life expectancy. These results are taken as an experimental proof of fact. However, as the science philosopher Popper explained in 1934 in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery, each experiment just proves the situation of the trial and never if the claim was right or wrong [92]. For example, a fitness program may cause other disorders, like arthritis, ruptures of muscle fibers, chronic exhaustion or injuries. Other detrimental facts from beyond the experimental setup may influence the proof, like stress or desultory accidents. Thus, the only thing a research experiment can logically assure is a factual exclusion by falsification. Then, in regard to quantifying research, the results by classifying numbers or appropriate ratios may help to tune on processes, for instance in production or in business operations. Indeed, business may be better controlled and processes may be improved by setting expectancy values, tolerance values and a number of standard deviations to keep around the mean. These achievements are taken as a quantified verification. However, as the physicist Heisenberg explained in 1927 by the Uncertainty principle, any quantification has a limited precision because of the measurement itself [93]. Therefore, Six Sigma is just a quantity depending on the set of tolerances and not an absolute value. And if the tolerances are too narrow and/or the number of included standard deviations is too high, then the required means and the investments for

144 

 4 Invention

quality assurance will exceed each economic limit. Thus, the only thing a quantified result from research can logically prove is a factual estimation of uncertainty. Furthermore, according to research for symmetry, a mirroring or an imitation of the layouts may ascertain a stabilized and conservative operation, such as for product and process design. Indeed, operations are better drafted in a wellbalanced and harmonic way—reliably tuned in a proper way. As previously explained for design in innovation marketing, this may produce a self-reliant confirmation for a management and business outline. As the mathematician Noether showed in 1918, the values of a system are conserved in time when there is a respective, continuous symmetry property. Inversely, in order to change the values of a system, a slight introduction of asymmetry can be applied, for instance the n- or p-type doping of semiconductors to achieve desirable conductivity, the implementation of carbon atoms or other ions for case-hardening or the application of a beauty mark for the beautification of an already beautiful face. Thus, the only thing that symmetry can add to a research project is a suitable contradiction of parities and disparities. Finally, according to a research for systematic classification, an exhaustive approach in detail may guarantee a general fulfillment of requirements, such as for the setup and execution of a project. Indeed, advancements are better flanked by a thorough conception, organization, planning and controlling of subsequent exploration, feasibility, testing, and launch—as explained earlier. However, the mathematician Goedel established in 1931 a theorem, by which each theory is incomplete to prove its own consistence [94]. Hence, there is always room for the improvement of a system, such as by a replacement of the materials, change of the forms, an enhancement of the efficiency or by the finding of a new purpose. Thus, the contribution of a systematic classification for a research project is the systematic quest for incompleteness. Hence, falsification, uncertainty, contradiction, and incompleteness are a novel quadruple of categories, this time assigned for scientific research for invention and innovation. And they need to be functionalized by the attribution of suitable methods. Lesson 28 Research concerns a deliberate problematization of the obvious!

4.2 Research 

 145

4.2.1 Falsification One of [the Cretans] themselves, a prophet of their own, said: Cretans are always liars [. . .] This testimony is true. biblical Epistle to Titus 1;12 by Paul the Apostle about 60 AD

If someone declares to be lying, it is a right statement when being a lie, and it is a wrong statement when being true. Thus, in any case, it is a false statement, because it is neither right nor wrong but of an indefinite truth. In general, most people tend to believe that statements have to be always right or wrong—which is justified mostly, but not always. There are exceptions, which become recognizable at a second, closer look—indeed, by research for a disruption of the ubiquitous logic. Consequently, a research for such exceptions is quite advisable in order to obtain a paradigmatic change. For the purpose of blockbusting inventions, in particular, it seems quite useful to train, teach, and develop the ability to falsify any statement. Starting with the truth of words, Grelling has described a falsification in 1902: Most words are heterological, which means that they mark something different from what they mean. For example, the word “Russian” is not Russian, but English, and the word “disyllabic” does not have two syllables, but four. However, some words are autological, when they mark something in accord with their meaning. For example, the word “рўсский” is the Russian word for “Russian” and the word “pentasyllabic” has five syllables. Apparently, words are either heterological or autological. However, if we reconsider the word “heterological” it is autological when being right, but then heterological, in consequence, and therefore logically wrong. Obviously, the distinction of just heterological and autological words is a false statement. Such paradoxes are general statements, which contradict themselves when scrutinized. A common example is the bill stating “Post no bills!”—or a slogan advertising a “unique variety”. A classical example is a court trial at Athens in the 5th century: The then famous jurist Proklos had agreed with a trainee that the trainee would pay the fees for his instruction after his first trial won at court. Yet, the pupil refused to pursue any lawsuit after graduation and admission. Proklos sued him for restitution. If his right was confirmed, the pupil would lose the case and need not pay—yet, if his right were rejected, then the pupil would not need to pay but would have won the case and therefore would have had to pay. Again, a logically sound judgment seems not to exist— beside the superior legal principle: In dubio pro reo, that is, in doubt for the accused. But this is no judgment but a research for higher wisdom without any logical decision. A particular paradox is illustrated by the surrealist painter Magritte in 1929 with his oeuvre The Treachery of Images. The painting shows a pipe and notes on it: This is not a pipe.6 (see Figure 4.7) And truly, the image of a pipe is not a pipe but its image. 6 Originally in French: Ceci n’est pas une pipe.

146 

 4 Invention

Figure 4.7: Research of logical statements beyond right or wrong.

Yet, within the image, the pipe is a pipe. Consequently, the statement of the image can be understood as right and wrong according to the point of view. And obviously, the contemplation of arts is a renowned way to change the aspects by the stimulation of a second thought and research. A tautology is a special form of a paradox falsification, which literally stands for comprising everything. Hence, a tautological statement is futile, obsolete, and without consequences—and does not state anything. “If it does not change, it stays as it is!” is such a statement without statement—and a kind of an oxymoron. Hence, a tautology is absurd and belongs to the repertoire of comedians, satirists, and other cabaret artists, in order to implement a surprising turn in a reasonable argument. For instance, the famous declaration of Groucho Marx: “Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member.” [95] Or, the rhyme named ukase, meaning a legal issue without logical justification, by the poet Morgenstern: “I make it known by proclamation: Today’s no feast day in this nation. Wherefore this day / forever may be feted as Nonholiday.” And the line in a text by the stage entertainment actor and writer Goetz: “Indeed, I believe that in former times you have been younger!” [96] Additionally, as a scholar’s favorite desire for instruction of the author’s own observation: “I would like to succeed by my very own, yet I don’t find someone to support me!” Finally, an antinomy is a particular form of a paradox comprehension, which comprises a thesis as well as its antithesis. For example, the Delphic Sibyl called Socrates the wisest man on earth because he was the first to know his ignorance, that is, he knew that he did not know. Obviously, this irritation in comprehension marks the difference between erudition and wisdom. Apparently, antinomies concern the fundamental aspects of human existence, like this finding of Epicurus: “Death, therefore, the most awful of evils, is nothing to us, seeing that, when we are, death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not.” [97] Similarly, each project failure is at least also some sort of result, but never to try a project is surly a miss. Or, as the poet Virgil put it inversely: “The only safe course for the defeated is to expect no safety.” [98] Accordingly, those who doubt a surplus by research and development should probably renounce to innovation management. And the insight that change is the only constant—generally attributed to Heraclitus—may characterize the nature of science between permanent conservation of knowledge and its steady increase. In particular, the constant research activities provide a constant change of the scientific conditions. Scientifically, the logical conclusion of illogicalness seems unfamiliar and arduous. Additionally, it seems completely uncertain, whether the intended

4.2 Research 

 147

economical advantage can be achieved by such logical falsifications. Therefore, a research for deeper wisdom is often rejected by pointing out the doubtful contributions for success. But this doubt is doubtful, too. For the only thing that is doubtlessly valid is the existence of doubts, as the philosopher Descrates pointed out in 1641. [99] For instance, there are numerous statements according to inventions that have become ridiculous nowadays. “When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more be heard of.” This statement of Professor Erasmus Wilson from the Oxford University was logically sound in 1878 when no electrical network was available. “That’s an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?” This question about the telephone by its inventor Alexander Graham Bell was equally sound in the 1870s without any communication network. And similarly the reasoning of the automobile pioneer Gottlieb Daimler was comprehensible in 1901: “The global demand for cars will not exceed one million—due to the lack of chauffeurs alone.” A different approach to exclusion is an unimaginable supposition, for example, by Harry Warner, CEO of Warner Brothers, in 1927: “Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?” Or by Watson, CEO of IBM, in 1943: “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” More recently, there is the estimation of Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft, in 1981: “640 kB of memory ought to be enough for everybody.” Please note that all these conclusions have been logically appropriate at their time. They just became doubtful and then falsified when the premises changed. This rational thinking is considered as a fundamental way to achieve scientific progress. Consequently, it seems quite reasonable to start with a research about the limits of human understanding in order to reach out for an innovative solution. In this sense, a falsification appears as a superior hermeneutical wisdom, which is approved by a steady flow of new accomplishments in science and technology. Meanwhile, the general applicability of doubts has been proved also for scientific disciplines like mathematics and physics, known as the theorem of incompleteness and the uncertainty principle. Lesson 29 The search for illogicality enables an inventive logic!

4.2.2 Uncertainty Everything, I do not know, yet, I am conscious of plenty. from: Faust, First Part of the Tragedy, Scene 7 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1808 [1]

Polemics are the parents of all things, as Heraclitus has stated. In fact, the Greek word “polemics” in Heraclitus’s fragment B53 comprises dispute, conflict, quarrel, and war. Scientifically, however, conflicts are not a question of warfare but just of disputable reasoning or complementary physical measurements.

148 

 4 Invention

The conflict of complementary physical properties was acknowledged in 1927 by Heisenberg as a novel law of nature called “the uncertainty principle”. It states that measurable values have to be always uncertain—at least to the amount of Planck’s constant. Indeed, it can be observed that quantum particles are found outside a physical boundary, when their uncertainty in space or their potential of energy reaches beyond the given limits. This is called “quantum tunneling” because the object drives through the barrier like a tunnel. And this effect can explain the fission of radionuclear atoms and stands therefore as an objectivated truth. We do not know extensively the efforts of Heisenberg to convince his colleagues about this new comprehension in physics. Yet, certainly, he had to defend it against all odds. In his memorial report he mentioned an exhausting dispute with Bohr in Denmark about an appropriate understanding, today known as the Copenhagen interpretation. Sometimes, a considerable disputability is required in order to make new things happen. Since Osborn’s checklist provides a quantity of questions to start a development, a similar amount of techniques is required to tame down the choice at research. The art of disputation is named after the related Greek goddess Eris as eristic. This aspect for the management of inventions and innovations is mostly neglected or inherently implemented in the general scientific education by academic debating clubs. However, it is an essential ability for management practice since each manager has to state and to argue an unaccomplished novelty at the very beginning of a project case—otherwise it would not be new. Any idea for a research is initially grounded just on a hopefully reliable and sound argumentation, as long as it is not confirmed by a real and factual execution. Objectively, an idea cannot be justified but by arguments. As already mentioned, research is somewhat suspended on the factual side. Consequently, an innovation manager has to defend a case reasonably until facts can be furnished. And this unassigned argumentation is also a creative activity to obtain some resilient founding for the research on an utopist hypothesis. Indeed, in many cases the professional request for suitable arguments turns out to be quite useful, because a deeper understanding and an extended analysis are obtained. This aspect of a dispute is called dialectic, meaning intelligence, and insight—yet, sometimes understood as hairsplitting finickiness or logomachy. If there is a lack of suitable arguments, in awkward cases, dialectics may lead to frustration, missed opportunities and false failures. Hence, it seems appropriate to know some eristic techniques, meaning the justification of any case, although with uncertain truth. Within the posthumous scripts of Schopenhauer a collection of 38 argumentative tricks was found, in order to argue and hold any proposition. And he described the necessity to resort to tricks in a most comprehensible way: Eristic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one’s own, whether one is in the right or the wrong. A man may be objectively in the right, and nevertheless in the eyes of bystanders, and sometimes in his own, he may come off worst. For example, I may advance a

4.2 Research 

 149

proof of some assertion, and my adversary may refute the proof, and thus appear to have refuted the assertion, for which there may, nevertheless, be other proofs. In this case, of course, my adversary and I change places: He comes off best, although, as a matter of fact, he is in the wrong. [100]

For a practical inspection, training, and application, the 38 tricks can be allocated and structured by nine action fields during a dispute:7 First, there are three tricks to refuse a proposition: An extension of the field of application for the proposition forces the opposing party to be more and more specific, until just insignificant particularities are disputable. A specific assignment or homonymy of the applied wording to another meaning will disperse a proposition. For instance, an attribute like “strong” can be understood by different impressions, like color, force, sound or mood, which can be arbitrarily (mis-)understood. And any generalization of a proposition will become absurd, non-sensed, and refuted sooner or later, for example, an exaggeration about validity, duration, durability, and acceptability. Second, there are three tricks to prepare an own proposition: Concealment by interspersed undisputable statements, which cannot be refused anymore later on but result in a framework for the final proposition. An irritation by obviously false statements, which later on are sacrificed as concessions but allow to push other statements, especially the important ones. And the hiding of a proposition in a general postulation, which is previously explained by particularities, unsuspicious platitudes or innocent wording but subsequently are generalized, concretized or stated more precisely in a suitable manner. Third, there are five tricks to embarrass the opposing party about its ignorance: An admission of the statements encourages more and more explanations, which comprise some inconsistencies and suspicious aspects ready for later inquiries. A voluntary misinterpretation causes some imprudent comments, which are easy to refute. A disregard of the argumentation and a conclusion by just following one’s own logic constantly detours the logic of the opponent. A pretention of an admitted decision or just a selected choice of alternatives baffles an argumentation without being precise and committed. And a prematurity in conclusion of results allows the presentation of specific admissions without justification. Fourth, there are four tricks to screw meanings, propositions, and arguments: A metaphorical diction, which awards the proposition a favorable or unfavorable taste, for example, an inventive ideation or a suicidal ideation. A selection of detrimental alternatives, which causes the opponent to choose the least evil, however, still an advantage for the own proposition. An audacious conclusion proclaiming the proof of one’s own proposition—though defeated—sometimes work. A feint of two or more propositions, which can be proved just for one, yet is extended to both or all of them. 7 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular method. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

150 

 4 Invention

Fifth, there are seven tricks to decompose the credibility of the opponent: A questioning about former positions and opinions or similar topics, which have turned out wrong, makes the opponent incredible, at least for bystanders. A subtle distinction of the opponent’s wording within a particular case study, where the words have another meaning, is apt for lasting disputes without any progress. An interruptive change of the subject allows placing novel meanings, propositions, and arguments, which insinuate at least some doubts, if the opponent needs time to follow. A generalization of arguments prohibits taking exact position and becoming vulnerable, since “in general” everything is somehow true. An implication of additional unproved arguments in the argumentation allows drawing favorable conclusions regardless of counter-propositions, because in the end there is mostly no time to check all correlations. An imitation of an unfair proposition reveals the unfairness without going into the details. And a misinterpretation of an opponent’s argument avoids a detrimental conclusion, but gives the opportunity to speak about creditability, instead. Sixth, there are four tricks to manipulate the opponent: A seducement to exaggerate the statements by steady objection, causing more and more explanations that turn out unsustainable in the end. A false understanding by syllogism of the opponent’s argumentation, which contradicts a proposition or a general accepted truth, causes embarrassment, although the conclusion was not rightly taken. One or several particulate counterexamples defeat a general proposition, in spite of a proof, whether the counterexample is right, relevant or significant in this generality, but the objection of an objection is always controversial. And a reversal of a conclusion quite often raises an objection, for example, the disbelief due to a lack of facts is reversed by the demand to belief first in order to recognize some facts. Seventh, there are three tricks to manipulate the dispute: A persistence to misunderstand, ignore or conclude wrong—as already mentioned—causes anger or embarrassment, which can be interpreted, as if the opponent is threatened in fact. A persuasion of the audience by means of feigned expertise forces the opponent to instruct the laymen in order to prevent unjustified agreement—yet a plausible simplicity is accredited with more confidence than a complicated instruction. And a diversion of the attention with regard to further, other or broader topics avoids a direct confrontation and decision, but swivels to endless palaver, until something is decided without agreement due to a lack of time. Eighth, there a five tricks to leave the dispute: An appeal to an acknowledged authority states a result, for example, by citation, which is hardly confirmable by origin, context, relation or relevance in time—but may be due to another originator, topic, sense or a doubtable source. A denial of comprehensibility causes an impression to the audience that the argumentation is dismissed and gets undecidable, because the speakers are generally accredited with certain authority; and if one denies comprehensibleness, the topic is probably too complicated. An assignment of an argument to a category that has been already rejected makes a vicious circle

4.2 Research 

 151

of argumentation, where nothing comes forward any more. A disclaim of practical relevance of the result seems to settle the case without any necessity of the dispute ever, because facts to prove or refute a proposition are absolutely true—and need no dispute at all. And a certain insistence and inquiry of several statements does not produce new arguments, yet it conveys an impression to bystanders that the opposing party has still some considerations to accomplish. Finally, and ninth, there are four tricks to finish a dispute: An exposure of the intentions and interests of the opponent insinuates that a contrary result is inacceptable from the outset—and maybe the opponent is forced to concede own contradictions or rethink the statements. A bombastic spiel or slipslop shows or feigns further knowledge and propositions—and the audience may get the impression that there is still a lot to say. Eloquence, that is, a rhetorical volubility, can transfer a convincing argumentation into a convicted case, because often a refutation by words is taken as a falsification by fact. This would be a suitable closing for the tricks for a dispute about invention projects, but Schopenhauer furnishes a very last trick: An insult, a personal hurt or rudeness about reputation will surely put an end to any oral dispute—as an ultimate mean. However, successive legal as well as physical prosecutions have to be envisaged. And this last trick may leave the platform an appropriate means for a dispute. Scientifically, the success of eristic is based on the inherent uncertainty of all topics, which are not proved by fact. Therefore, they are undoubtedly dubious, yet open for any reasonable research, too. The purpose of eristic is a fair defense of propositions, yet fairness implies an equal knowledge about tricks for all parties and stakeholders. A second look on the tricks may make it clear that each advantage implies a disadvantage for the opponent—and in turn the opponent could be us. At best, a mutual application of the tricks helps to deepen the understanding and harden the proposition. At worst, a permanent bossiness leads to unpopularity and isolation. Sometimes it should be enough to know the tricks, without necessarily using them. It may be a question of honesty, but human communities usually have a certain feeling for it. And perhaps, one has to be honest first to be admitted for a dispute about research options. Lesson 30 Inventions need a controversial bossiness!

152 

 4 Invention

4.2.3 Contradiction To each its own. On Duties 1, 15 by Cicero 44 BC

Inventions result generally from problems, conflicts, antitheses or contradictions, as has been already explained for development. Thus, a contradiction is a special form of correlation between a pair of intentional factors, which open a way toward inventive development. Since the previously introduced inventive principles of development by TIPS are general solutions for problems, it appears rather promising to research the contradicting factors behind about the causes for the respective problem. The general research of such metaphorical factors enables a deeper insight into inventive patterns and furnishes an approach to paradigmatic change and disruption. By his laborious work in evaluating inventor certificates for TIPS, Altshuller derived an encyclopedic set of 39 factors, which he estimated to be the general cause for most patent claims. Hence, 39 institutions should be enough for a general research in applied sciences. While in 1620 the Lord Chancellor Bacon named just 20 research institutions, labors, and houses to cover a practical exploration of the whole world, the number of institutions for applied research counts rather by the thousands. This may be due to the necessity to interpret the research factors in a comprehensible way for each case according to their implementation and application. Although the word “factor” defines a measurable technical fact, a metaphorical comprehension is required to understand the intended invention. So, 39 factors seems a reasonably good number to start with— they are of the same magnitude as the 62 questions of Osborn’s checklist, the 40 inventive principles of TRIZ or the 38 eristic tricks by Schopenhauer. And again the handling of those factors can be facilitated by a further clustering to four superior classes.8 The first class contains six factors of mechanical causes for inventions: weight, length, area, volume, load, and energy of an object as a physical body. For example, the weight of an object causes strains, which result in momentum according to the length of the object and lead to tension according to the object’s surface area; this provokes deformation of the object’s volume until a limit of its stability is exceeded and the stored tensile energy is set free. Since the effects of mechanics differ with regard to the motion status of a physical body, that is, resting or moving, each mechanical cause counts twice, that is, by statics or by kinetics. For instance, the weight of a moving object affects its acceleration and its lever arm distance a turning moment; the area of a moving object induces flow resistance and its bulk volume is responsible for a higher rotational inertia, since the inertia of a moving object entails its stability by conservation of momentum and its energy, too. Please note that these are only general statements in order to exemplify the effects caused by measurable factors. Altogether, a total of 12 different causes by mechanics are provided by this first classification. 8 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular method. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

4.2 Research 

 153

The second class contains ten factors to seize the remaining physical causes and their properties: velocity, force, pressure, form, robustness, elasticity, temperature, brightness, power, and substance. For example, the effects of an impact are due to velocity and, according to the impact duration, due to force and, according to the impact area, due to pressure, which all are causes from outside of an object. From inside of an object, the effects of an impact are influenced by its form, for example, globular, angular or fuzzy, and by its robustness under structural tension, as well as by its elasticity due to extension. Furthermore, the appearance of an object is physically affected by temperature, for example, softness or rigidity, or by its brightness, for example, its visibility. And finally, the general changes of an object depend on the transmitted power as well as on the amount of its substance. Again, the examples are just meant to give a first impression about possible effects due to these 10 physical causes. The third class subsumes nine factors as cause for inventions according to the measurable effectiveness of an operation: On one side those factors are due to the consumption or loss of energy, of matter, of information or of time. For example, these four factors have to be avoided or restituted for a better effect of the invention. Then there are causes due to precision of reliability, of measurement or of reproducibility. For example, these three factors have to be enhanced to ensure a desirable effect. And finally, there are to consider actions taken on an object as well as reactions by an object. For example, these two factors are the reason for an effective functionality. Altogether, this third classification contains 9 different causes for the effectiveness of an operation. The fourth class gathers finally the measurable efficiency of an invention with eight factors. In general, they concern the business performance by producibility, usability, reparability, adaptability, structural complexity, controllability at use, automatability or by productivity. Please note that all these 8 abilities have to be understood in a measurable way in order to claim an inventive technical effect. All these 39 technical factors are now correlated in order to research possible inventions for an overall working system. And each apparent contradiction in this correlation should be bridged by inventive principles in order to improve a technical functionality (see Figure 4.8). This is the basic idea of a contradiction matrix, where the typical inventive principles at the intersection of two different factors are listed. TFi

TFi

TFj

TFj

IPij

IPji Figure 4.8: Contradictions between different technical factors (TF) become linked by particular inventive principles (IP).

154 

 4 Invention

Please note that this matrix is not symmetric since the effect of a factor by the cause of another factor may result in a different inventive principle than the effect of the latter factor caused by the former factor. For example, the weight of a moving object is detrimental to the effect of velocity because it lowers the acceleration; yet the velocity can be enhanced by means of more energy without increasing the weight. Consequently, there are 38 × 39 = 1,482 contradictions as research targets for their inventive principles and bridging solutions. This yields an overall investigation of 38 × 39 × 40 = 59,280 use cases, taking into account the 40 inventive principles for each contradiction. Seemingly, this is somehow closer to the real number of institutions for applied research, if private, industrial, public, and academic research institutes and their divisions and departments are considered. Each research project covers a particular approach of contradicting factors with the aim to find an inventive principle for an appropriate patent claim. Thus, a complete study of a technological business field with its totality of 59,280 use cases would require about 30 years of work, when each study of a contradiction could be limited to 1 hour, and 50 weeks of 40 hours each are performed in a year. This seems exhausting—even for a keen, persevering and skilled inventor. And one would expect some savings by professional innovation management due to commercial economics. Indeed, not all principles apply to all contradictions—and most of the labs in such an institution would be obsolete, futile, unemployed, and remain obscure all the time (see Figure 4.9). In general, just one to four inventive principles turn out to be relevant for a contradiction—and sometimes even none at all. If one counts an average of two, then an overall investigation concerns just the inspection of 38 × 39 × 2 = 2,968 use cases, which appears more manageable. Considering a staff of six team members, a thorough first research study should be completed in two or three months. This is a reasonable se

pa

rat

pri

nc

ipl

es

technical factors TF

te

ch

ni

ca lf

ac

to rs

inventive principles IP

ion

Figure 4.9: A research building for contradictions with 39 interfering factors on each level and 40 levels of inventive principles—yet, not every lab is reasonably working.

4.2 Research 

 155

time to prepare an outline of a medium-term research project for a period of two to five years. And in 1971 Altshuller supplied a draft for a universal contradiction matrix, which can be now used free of charge by a paper list. Meanwhile, there are even interactive platforms and electronic appliances to save time and effort, too. Smaller projects can be further rationalized by restriction of the technical factors, for example, by a focus just on the mechanical, the other physical, the effective or the efficient factors as mentioned before. This seems quite similar to the paired comparison as revealed for development in general. With a set of about ten factors and two inventive principles the total effort concerns then just 9 × 10 × 2 = 180 use cases, which seems to be manageable by a team of six within a week. Still missing in that paired comparison are the contradictions of a technical factor itself, that is, when a cause and its respective effect concern the same technical factor: For instance, if something has to be lighter and heavier, shorter and longer, smaller and bigger altogether. This is not a technical contradiction any more but a kind of a physical or scientific contradiction in general, which is ready for a fundamental research project. And in 1979 Altshuller suggested solving this particular kind of fundamental problem—which he called physical contradiction—by means of separation principles. Meanwhile there are four separation principles known, which seems again a rather low number compared to the amount of institutions of fundamental research in the world. But then once more an appropriate understanding and interpretation is required to apply the separation principles to practical use cases. The first separation principle is spatial: By splitting the contradicting aspects of a single factor into separate sections, they can be simultaneously fulfilled. This is a common and basic practice by the rule: Each thing at its proper place. We all are familiar with different locations to work, eat, sleep or purge. But mostly this principle is not consciously at hand when we are looking for a tricky technical contradiction. For example, a common request for technical components is low price and high grade at once. And a spatial distinction into a substrate and its coating is a suitable way to incorporate both aspects. The substrate is responsible for substantial requirements, like robustness and weight, in a cheap way. The coating is used to fulfill functional requirements, like coloring and protection, with a first-class performance. In total, the controversial requirements are accomplished by spatial separation. The second separation principle is temporal: By distributing the contradicting aspects of a single factor to different time slots, they can be achieved altogether. Again, this is quite commonly practiced by the rule: Everything at the proper time. In our daily routine we know when to be at work, to take time for a meal, to go to bed or to use the lavatory. But principally, it is helpful to be aware of this splitting option, if necessary. For example, technical hardening requires high and low temperatures in order to establish a favorable metallic structure of steel alloys. High temperatures are necessary to obtain a martensitic transformation and quenching to low temperatures is needed to fix the crystal structure—and subsequent tempering to elevated temperatures is best to avoid excessive hardening and reduce residual stress. An unskilled observer may be confused by this scheduling of heating, cooling, and heating again.

156 

 4 Invention

But a skilled manager knows that the time scheduling is required to comply with several interests by just one factor of heat treatment. The third separation principle is structural: An accomplishment of effects at different levels of a technical object is capable to satisfy almost paradoxical intentions. Or, as the Nobel laureate Feynman stated for the onset of nanotechnology: There is plenty of room at the bottom. Again, the structural differentiation is quite common since we are used to accepting a difference between an execution and the management of work. The management of an execution does not mean its accomplishment and the execution does not mostly permit an adequate management of the task. Especially, modern technologies refer extensively to the introduction of structural levels on micro- and nanoscales. For example, a painting process needs to cover wide areas with thin layers and depends on a large quantity of paint by locally small quantities. This paradox can be resolved by a paint dust or mist containing droplets of micrometer size in large quantity suspended in the air. By adjusting a convenient settling rate of the droplets a uniform layer of film is provided on a large surface. And by nanotechnology even stronger effects seem available out of almost nothing. The fourth separation principle is conditional: An adjusted or adjustable conditioning of technical objects is the basis of almost all industrial engineering achievements. Basically, this principle is commonly known as self-regulation. Or, as the medieval toxicologist Paracelsus has stated: The dose makes the poison. Each human culture is based on conditioning where the rules change by the circumstances. A small amount of alcohol can be healthy, but a large amount may be deadly. And a reasonable amount of system criticism is courageous, but a general rioting may become detrimental. Technically, the conditioning of engines stands at the beginning of the industrialization: The conditioning of the steam engine to produce and exhaust vapor was the onset of the first Industrial Revolution. Later on, the conditioning of electronic switches to turn on and off an electric operation was the beginning of automation. Then, the conditioning of computational devices to operate and control an industrial process, machine or factory characterizes the industry of our time. And a sophisticated interaction of machines, factories and enterprises as a Cyber Physical System (CPS) is perhaps the onset of a fourth Industrial Revolution. The separation principle seems an outstanding tool to understand and explain revolutionary inventions. Scientifically, a hermeneutical comprehension is required to derive an inventive solution for a fundamental contradiction. Indeed, the methods of TIPS need some training, teaching, and education to become applicable. The useful factors and principles are not a simple or automatic mechanism to arrive at inventions. Indeed, this theory needs skilled deduction and creative implementation to become useful. They support researchers, inventors or innovation managers, but do not replace them. Lesson 31 Inventions are spurred by contradictory aims!

4.2 Research 

 157

4.2.4 Incompleteness To know many things does not make it for a comprehension. statement attributed to Heraclitus by Diogenes Laertius in: Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, Book 9, 1 about 300 AD

In the 1920s the famous mathematician Hilbert drafted a research program to complete the theories of mathematics. However, in 1931 the mathematician Gödel proved a theorem about the general incompleteness of this approach, or to use mathematical terminology: Any theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability underlies the following statement: If T includes a statement of its own consistency, then T is inconsistent. Consequently, the simple question of whether the mathematical logic is always consistent cannot be answered by mathematical logic, because the particular conclusion to prove the logic can hazardously be inconsistent. Hence, mathematics would be just logic, because of some illogicalness, which does not appear very logic, does it? Or, to put it positively: There are always further modalities to develop the theories of mathematics. And scientifically: There are always some categories that exceed the framework of human understanding, as already stated before. Consequently, a technical system should similarly disclose innovative opportunities for an upgrade, because neither science is ever going to hit a dead end nor will innovations ever stop. Something can always be added, because science is always open for a new reasoning. It is rather doubtful that all scientific or inventive accomplishments can be developed within the framework of acknowledged classifications. Novel verities may turn out by research of the known due to new problems and their respective innovative solutions. This is the meaning and the merit of systematic skepticism, literally comprising appropriate doubting, due diligence, cautious survey, and prospective spying. Toward the end of the 2nd century the philosopher Sextus Empiricus edited a summary of the methods of Pyrrhonian skepticism, that is, a Greek school or think tank founded by Pyrrhon some five hundred years before. In the beginning he states quite intelligibly how skepticism works: Skepticism is the ability to find the opposites both of objects of experience and of objects of thought in any way whatever. Because the opposed things or reasons have equal force, we are led first to suspension of judgment, and then to serenity. I do not mean ability in any technical sense, but simply in the sense of “being able”. By objects of experience I mean things given to our senses, which is why I contrast them with objects of thought […] By opposed reason, I do not mean absolutely any assertion and its denial, but only conflicting reasons. By having equal force, I mean being equally probable and equally improbable, so that neither of two conflicting reasons is more probable than the other. Suspension of judgment is when the process of thinking comes to an end, without our denying or asserting anything. Serenity is freedom from disturbance, and calmness [101].

158 

 4 Invention

Afterwards Sextus Empiricus furnishes three lists containing 17 transformations in order to doubt any statements. These transformations are called tropes, literally standing for change, conversion, and transmutation, like the way tropical winds change their direction in the vicinity of the equator. Remarkably, the tropes provide a practical method to change systematically various aspects of cognition. Therefore, skepticism is a rather useful way for research, in spite of being often presumed as obstructive, delusive, irritating, and impractical. By tropical doubts a skeptic gains a vast spectrum of alternatives; and literally “skeptic” and “spectrum” are connected words, standing for “insight”, “prevision”, and “circumspection”. Actually, these tropes still turn out to be quite useful for an investigation about research topics. In the following, 5 lists with a total of 18 tropes are presented with some updates, since a certain adaptation for the purpose of invention and innovation management is required anyhow.9 The first list of tropes contains four doubts on perception, which may therefore be changed. An impression is doubtful due to habits and aging, because by repetition sensual perceptions are sometimes sharpened or sometimes dulled, since the human sensory system reacts autonomously to the perceived intensity of light, sound, smell, taste or pain. And the sensual experience is doubtful, too, because frequent use of machines, cars, videos or computers changes the feel for distance, velocity, time, and load, since there are differences between real and virtual experiences, that is, by day or by dream. Then, the range of a sensed expertise is doubtful because manned and unmanned vehicles and instruments report experience far beyond human perceptibility, for example, from ocean grounds, outer space objects, microbial life, molecular structures, and high-temperature processes—however, there are still considerable differences between personal sensations and instrumented inspections. Finally, the general concept of perception is somehow doubtful, because it interferes with the actual view about space, time, economy, and society, for example, by wave-particle duality and quantum leaps in mechanics or space warp and time dilatation in relativity theory or humanistic, liberal, capitalistic, and social ideologies for the cohabitation of people and political systems. The second list of tropes contains four more doubts of reality with regard to the uniqueness of appearance. An appearance of a material can be quite different when it achieves comparable effects, for example, metals nowadays substitute stones and bones—and plastic substitutes natural materials like wood, wool or silk—and semiconductors substitute relays and increasingly data processing devices, formerly preserved for the neural network of a human brain. Then the form of objects can be

9 Please note that this itemization is just meant as a reference to this particular aspect. For more detail, please refer to the respective literature.

4.2 Research 

 159

quite different, too, for example, by granular, fibrous, plane, porous or micro-structured bodies, like the texture of steel alloys, or by the fiber reinforcement of composites or by the multilayering of concealments or by the porosity of absorbers. Further, the amount of objects can cause a different effect within a mixture, for example, the doping of semiconductors or the dosage of medicine, the efficiency of foams or fogs and the metered addition of technical agents in the right moment. Finally, the purpose of objects can be deliberately altered by reassignment, for example, a piece of charcoal can serve for a fire or for a drawing or for steel hardening or for filtration of air and water or to gain dispersed resources. Especially water seems to be the most alterable matter of the universe, enabling the manifold of biological existences. The third list of tropes contains another set of four doubts on judgments. According to Kant’s categories for judgments mentioned before, the quality of a constitution can differ by another distribution, for example, a single bee appears less threatening than a hive, a grain of sand is less impressive than a desert and a regular sponsoring is less exhilarating than an unexpected gift of the same amount. Then, the quantity of a constitution can differ when compared to another perspective, for example, the hostile temperatures of the sun, on one side, permit a convenient ambiance for life on earth, on the other side—and compared to a mite a microbe is minuscule but responsible for worldwide plagues—a single dollar will increase at 10% interests to a thousand within 49 years—and a written contract comprises more than a mutual handshake. Further, the relations within a constitution can undergo different interactions, for example, red hair and blue eyes result simply by black and brown pigments interacting with the white stroma—and inert titanium dioxide becomes a catalyst for chemical reactions by ultraviolet radiation—and there is obviously a difference if one meets personal friends or a group of strangers. Finally, the modalities of a constitution can differ due to the circumstances, for example, a thimble of benzene is enough for a lighter, but not for a car—and a tip of thousand dollar is excessive, but not enough as a month salary—an island may prove to be a joyful holiday spot or become a nightmare if one is a castaway there. The fourth list of tropes is due to four doubts in regard to reason as a confirmation of knowledge: A technical fact may get another significance according to the linguistic usage, for example, recycling means literally a repeated reuse of technical products, which may concern the product itself by repair, or just the restoration of similar products with the construction material, or merely the recovery of the raw material, or even only the dumping of materials to refill the excavations in nature. Then, the psychical reason may get other explanations according to the employment of metaphors, for example, an apple is a round edible fruit from trees, but this holds true for a comparison with oranges, peaches, pears, and prunes as well—and people are free like birds in the sky, which seems yet not enough to seize the particularity of human freedom—and electrons orbit the atomic nucleus like

160 

 4 Invention

planets the sun, which is nevertheless inept to understand quantum leaps. Further, a logical justification may obtain other validity by exceptions, for example, people with similar habits have an equally similar life expectancy, unless influenced by genes, height, life story, education, and so forth—and bodies usually fall to the ground, unless they are lighter than air or tracked up by invisible forces. Finally, a casual coincidence may gain other importance by discovery, for example, all swans have been white, until a black species was discovered in Australia—and time appears as a universal dimension, until a dilatation was discovered as well for the rotation of Mercury, as for the half-life of cosmic mesons and as for an atomic clock inside an aircraft flying around the globe in 1971 [102]. In general, it is not mandatory that a part represents the whole, neither does a correlation hold true for all cases nor a conclusion arbitrarily applicable, and a comprehension is not valid forever. In the end, even science itself underlies two possible changes according to its two canonical truths. On one side, the deduction may be doubted according to the hermeneutical validity. For example, energy is theoretically a property, which stays constant by variation of the general equation of motion. Hence, the conservation of energy is a conclusion of this approach and not a heuristic finding, anymore. However, by the uncertainty of quantum mechanics a general equation of motion is never feasible and the conservation of energy can be resolved within the limits of Planck’s action quantum, that is, an appropriate short time. This explains the quantum tunnel effect—and by the Copenhagen interpretation each theory is just a model, which holds true as far as its deductions coincide with real effects. On the other side, the induction of a reason may be doubted according the heuristic generalization of experiences. For example, the practical definition of a mass is the proportion between force and acceleration of a body. The value of a mass is therefore fixed by heuristics and can never achieve another value. However, the speed of light is a limit for all movements, and consequently more acceleration does not increase the velocity of objects, anymore. In the relativistic theory the mass does therefore increase, and at high velocities a distinction of mass at rest and moving mass is introduced. In general, the purpose of research is to overcome paradigmatic limitations. Today, if we ask for objectivity and impartiality in science, we genuinely comprise a considerable skepticism. This means, for instance, an appropriate mastery of science in general and of scientific disciplines in particular and also an appropriate reference to realistic facts proved by comprehensible reasoning. Furthermore, this includes an appropriate analytic discussion of problems in order to realize, state, name, and discern contradicting oppositions. And finally, it comprises an appropriate indifference in regard to the solution in order to achieve a best opportunity. Indifference does not mean an adventurous and dreamy hope to arrive somewhere; indifference corresponds primordially with the hard work to excavate a concrete utopia and the

4.3 Prognosis 

 161

principle of hope. And each of the tropes represents an approach to turn a hopeless commitment into a hopeful project with probably innovative achievements. Lesson 32 Doubts can cause an inventive change!

4.3 Prognosis Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. saying attributed to the atomic physicist Niels Bohr 1885–1962

According to recent discoveries in neuroscience, a major part of the human brain is permanently concerned with a prognosis, literally meaning a precognition of events in the future. However, these considerations are mostly subconscious and just predict how our footsteps have to be placed when walking a uneven path, how an object is moving and how to coordinate our own movements to get it or to evade it, how to respond appropriately to an argument and how to prepare an understandable articulation in due time. As the processing of sensual information input requires at least about one tenth of a second, our considerations are permanently running ahead of our actions in order to keep up with eventualities. And if there is a necessity or some spare time for considerations, this ability to derive preparatory knowledge can be extended—even in a conscious way. In 1814 the scientist Laplace described a notion about the inability of the human wit to predict the future correctly, because for this purpose a supernatural intellect would be required called Laplace’s demon: An intellect, which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes. [103]

Consequently, any surprise by inventions, projects and innovations would then be impossible or obsolete—one could add with certain affirmation. If reliable prognosis would be achievable, the final state of destiny would become feasible as well, without further necessity for economy, improvement, disruption or any kind of management. Scientifically, inventions and innovations are not yet real and have to be realized in the future. Consequently, a particular research concerns the prediction of the

162 

 4 Invention

future in order to anticipate the future problems and to work on their solution in time. At least, the opportunities of a development or a research can be estimated by a prognosis of the future. However, a prognosis or precognition of the future is not scientific in the general meaning, because scientific knowledge is about admitted truths—and not about suppositions. All statements about science can just be verified when they already exist. And non-existing things do not provide a factual truth or a valid reason. But, considering all the knowledge that humanity has gathered in modern sciences, it appears feasible to estimate reasonable causes for probable facts in a justifiable way. In this sense, predictions depend on logical agreement, which epistemologically corresponds mainly to some justification. Hence, a prognosis is obtained completely suspended from both, that is, factual as well as reasonable truths—made up out of thin air, as can be stated truthfully (see Figure 4.10). Thereby, predictions are less true than research and much lesser than development, because a logical conclusion is either right or wrong, yet never true alone, as already explained for the research of falsifications earlier. And therefore, a truly infinite amount of logically sound statements about inventions, patents or innovations can be derived, yet not verified. This is a novel aspect of inventions and the corresponding innovation management. The lack of an appropriate amount of knowledge is a principal barrier for people to predict the future. And often one calls a scientific expert to make a prospective statement, because he or she is accredited with more skills. However, a true scientist usually is aware about the elenctic barrier as well as the incompleteness in science and therefore generally refuses to take any responsibility for such speculations. Perhaps, serious and renowned scientists are not really the perfect choice for innovation managers in general. But at the beginning of the 20th century a fundamental problem appeared for the basic understanding of the physical verification of elementary particles. The previously mentioned uncertainty obliges even the physicists to describe the factual state of a quantum object in any case with a certain variance δe, where δ is the uncertainty

justified business PROGNOSIS perceptible execution

believable application

Figure 4.10: A prognosis is just a logical justification suspended from facts and reason.

4.3 Prognosis 

 163

for a factual event e. And in quantum mechanics the factual appearance of an event E is derived from the probabilities p(e) of all events by integration of the tested spread from a to b: b

E = ∫ P ( e )de a

However, by any real experiment Ei it is just possible to observe single or discrete events by the number i of repeated trials. As all the experiments a person can perform in a lifetime is limited, even the effort of a hardworking experimenter is finally restricted to a general survey making EG = ∑ Ei with i = 1 . . . n, as the highest integer number of experimental tests. The total experience EG is everything, what can be seriously known about an event. In fact, the probability for the occurrence of a novel kind of event decreases according to the number of experiments already performed. Yet, according to the given general uncertainty, the probability will never vanish to zero. Consequently, within the extended interval from minus to plus infinity, even the smallest probability p(e) will contribute to a further exceptional event. Hence, in regard to any amount of limited experiences EG it is mathematically: +∞

EG