The Best of Today - S Engineer On Innovation

the best of
ieee usa today’s engineer

•
On Innovation
By Georgia C. Stelluto, Editor

Published by IEEE-USA.
Copyright © 2007 by the IEEE. All rights reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
Edited and compiled by Georgia C. Stelluto, IEEE-USA Publishing Manager.
Cover design and layout by Josie Thompson, Thompson Design.
This IEEE-USA publication is made possible through funding provided by a special dues assessment of IEEE
members residing in the United States.
Copying this material in any form is not permitted without prior written approval from the IEEE.
Table Of Contents 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Best Practices in Innovation: Learning from Others’ Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Top 10 Innovation Tools for New Millennium Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Engineers on Innovation: A View from the Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Not Invented Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Keep Their Clothes on … and More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Do Engineers Improve Lives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Unleash Your Inner Innovator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Ten Thoughts on Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Is Innovation the Answer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Backscatter: The Hat Trick — Having it Both Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Report Sets Agenda for Fostering Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
The Stealth Profession: How Do Engineers and R&D Benefit the Nation? . . . . . . . . . . . 48
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness (Part II) . . . . . . . . . 53
Engineer, Promote Thyself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
U.S. Competitiveness and the Profession of Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Are we Doing Enough for R&D Funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
IEEE-USA’s 2007 Innovation Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
IEEE-USA Launches an Innovation Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

4 Introduction
Innovation is the latest buzzword rolling off everyone’s lips. And innovation seems to be the
new raison d’etre. People, employees, managers and corporate executives are all striving to
be innovative.
It is an easy word to toss around. Many companies that include innovation in their mission
statements also list innovation, or being innovative, as one of their core values — and some
see innovation as part of their competitive strategies.
But, what do we mean by innovation and how do we get more of it?
Joyce Wycoff, executive director of the Innovation Network in Denver, Colorado, writes:
Some organizations are acknowledged as “innovative” by virtue of their flow of new prod-
ucts or services (3M, HP, Rubbermaid, Fedex). Perhaps a better definition of organizational
innovation would relate to the ability to intentionally change to meet new opportunities.
Wycoff explains that the definition incorporates three primary aspects:
• Having a common direction or vision
• Recognizing and deciding on opportunities related to the vision
• Intentionally and effectively moving in a direction to achieve the objective
She says that the better organization establishes an environment that supports these activities
and the more people within the organization who are following the path, the more innovative it
will be in every aspect of its activities. Further, Wycoff writes that the challenges of organiza-
tional information seem to be:
• D
eveloping and communicating a powerful vision to every person within the
organization.
• C
reating an environment that welcomes and continuously searches for opportunities
— one with a rich flow of ideas, information and interaction within the organization ...
among customers, the environment, competitors, suppliers and employees at all lev-
els and functions. It is a risk-tolerant environment that celebrates successes, as well
as great tries that didn’t work. This environment is also “fair play” and shares respect,
rewards and responsibilities at all levels.
• S
timulating effective action on opportunities at the individual, team, group and organi-
zation level — creating a system with enough freedom or “play” in it to allow time for
thinking, freedom to tinker around with new stuff, resources for experimenting, effec-
tiveness training opportunities open to all, and a constant incubation of pilot projects ...
a constantly evolving learning lab.
With all of this deep thinking, energy and action revolving around innovation going on —
our world is bound to become a better place...right?

5
I don’t have the answer to that question. But what I have done is reach back into the Today’s
Engineer archives, and compile for you some of our best articles on innovation — what it
means, what it is, how to do it, what to think about it, how to achieve it, and how it might be
affecting some aspects of engineering.
A good companion book to this one is William C. Miller’s latest and first in a series of three
e-books for IEEE-USA on innovation: Innovation Conversations— Book 1: The Innovation Pro-
cess — Energizing Values-Centered Innovation from Start to Finish. That book is now available
to IEEE members at a special, discounted price of $9.95 at www.ieeeusa.org/communica-
tions/ebooks/.
Happy innovating!
Georgia C. Stelluto, Editor
introduction
6 Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know
By Gus Gaynor
Framing the Issues

While the study of innovation has dramatically increased in the past decade, and produced a
great number of academic papers and business-related articles, engineers’ understanding of
the process has not been greatly enhanced. Academic engineering studies have not produced
a theory of the innovation process, or a Seven Steps to Successful Innovation. No designated
guru exists to tell us how to do it.
Most academic and business literature on innovation focuses on case studies and attempts
to reach conclusions or recommendations that can be adopted across industries and organiza-
tions. In most cases, the information deals with the past rather than the future. It tells us what
has been, not what will be. It’s history. In some cases, the information is anecdotal. In other
cases, anecdotal evidence has been massaged to validate certain hypotheses. This type of
research provides little benefit for innovation practitioners.
But innovation is personal. It’s unique. It’s about timing. It’s organization directed. And, it’s
complex. Every innovation has distinct characteristics. How it originates, the approaches
taken, and how engineers practice it in one organization may be totally different from how they
proceed in another organization.
So what is the engineer’s role in innovation? By using a framework, perhaps we can identify
the fundamental issues in the innovation process, and examine how engineers can participate
in making a value-added contribution on this uncharted road.
The innovation framework relative to products, processes, and services includes an understand-
ing of the following:
• What is innovation?
• What are the sources of innovation?
• Is there a process for innovation?
• What are the organizational requirements?
• Who are the innovators?
• Becoming the innovator
What Is Innovation?
Innovation in the abstract has little meaning — it exists in an organizational context and in the
real world. It cannot be considered as a single-issue. Innovation also involves invention and
creativity. It is multi-disciplinary, multi-functional, and global. Its success depends on the in-
novators, support people, management’s willingness to deal with frustration and uncertainties,
and the qualitative and quantitative input to decision processes. Investing in the innovator or
the innovation comes with no guarantees.

7
So what is innovation? For our purposes:
• It’s about bringing new products and services to the marketplace; and
• It’s about developing new processes to manufacture products more effectively, effi-
ciently, and with the economic use of resources.
Why don’t we see more innovation? Unfortunately, innovation is often confused with creativity
and invention. We even hear people talk of the innovative idea. Who knows what that means?
Are there innovative and non-innovative ideas? Are their good and bad ideas? Are there useful
ones? Let’s clarify the vocabulary. Here are some general descriptions of innovation:
Peter F. Drucker1 theorizes that innovation is the introduction of a new product, process, or
service into the marketplace. Innovation is not science or technology, but value.
Andrew H. Van de Ven2 considers innovation the development and implementation of new
ideas, by people who, over time, engage in transactions with others within an institutional
order.
Like Drucker, Frederick Betz3 discusses innovation as introducing new products, processes, or
services into the marketplace.
An unknown source4 suggests that, “Innovation is a mindset. Innovation is best described as
a pervasive attitude that allows businesses to see beyond the present and create a future vi-
sion.”
Drucker, Van de Ven, and Betz emphasize the idea of introducing new products, processes, and
services. Each of these descriptions includes new ideas, people, transactions, an institutional
context, and the marketplace. The unknown source adds the idea of having a mindset. Inno-
vation won’t happen without it.
These descriptions of innovation include all the activities and requirements in the idea and
concept to commercialization process. The word, implementation, may be substituted for in-
novations that are not commercialized, but implemented for their value-adding potential. These
types could be internal or external administrative processes that significantly affect operational
performance. Innovation is not just a bright idea. It involves doing something with ideas or
concepts that add value to your organization.
The innovation process does begin with ideas. Here’s an example of what it takes to develop a
successful product. G. A. Stevens and J. Burley5 provide us with a success curve of how many
raw ideas are required for a successful product. The statistics are not too encouraging. Their
study shows the following progression from raw ideas (unwritten) to product successes:
Raw Ideas (Unwritten) 3,000

Ideas Submitted 300
Small Projects 125
Significant Developments 9
Major Developments 4
Launches 1.7
Successes 1
Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

8
Keep these figures in perspective. Unwritten ideas are basically useless. Someone must take
the time to mull over an idea, turn it upside-down, inside-out, and put the idea down on paper.
If it can’t be written down and explained, chances are it’s not of any value. If it can’t be written
down, it’s not likely to be understood. Someone must identify the kernel of the idea. That’s
where the work begins.
Invention
Idea generation comes before invention. We don’t know much about how ideas occur. As an
example, why did the inventor of 3M’s Post-it!® notes come up with the idea when he did? He
sang in the choir for many years and kept losing those little pieces of paper that marked the
pages in his hymnal. Logic would suggest he would have thought about it at an earlier date.
After all, he worked at 3M for many years, and adhesion is one of its core competencies. Some
series of events must have triggered the idea. We just don’t understand the process. If we
did, we would have already resolved many of today’s technological limitations.
So, innovation includes invention, and invention begins with a new idea — something new. It’s
characterized by creating something which did not previously exist. It may refer to a product,
process, service, or some combination of concepts not previously revealed. Inventions span
the continuum from very simple to very complex. However, not all inventions are commercial-
ized. A patent issued for something new may or may not be of value. It may or may not be
commercialized.
Xerox’s Palo Alto Laboratory provides an excellent example of invention without any commer-
cialization. This center of research invented, and the company ignored, the first personal com-
puter, the first graphics-oriented monitor, the first hand-held mouse, the first processing pro-
gram for non-expert use, the first local area network, and the first laser printer. Xerox did not
commercialize any of these inventions. Management invested in research without recognizing
the significance of the demonstrated results. These inventions generated new businesses and
in some cases industries, but not for Xerox. Others commercialized the inventions.
Creativity
Invention and innovation involve creativity. They require thinking about the possible, about what
could be, about doing things differently, about putting together different combinations of what
is already known, and then having the ability to put it all together. Invention and innovation
involve some level of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Creativity has little to do with educa-
tional credentials or knowledge. To a great extent, it depends on a mindset and some innate
personal characteristics — not just promoting change, but accepting it.
A fundamental paradox is associated with creativity. While engineers talk about the lack of cre-
ativity, we really only want so much of it — and in such a way that it really doesn’t disturb our
status quo. We also fail to do the necessary homework to adequately propose an idea that may
be outside the domain of the organization’s purview.
Employers want creativity, but are they willing to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of creative people
— those who continually search for new opportunities — who are sometimes a breed apart?
Are the creators willing to do the up-front work to convince doubters and naysayers? Are all
of us willing to promote creativity and live with its uncertainties? Creativity is not done by the
numbers. It requires thinking and doing and thinking and doing more, until the expected result
is achieved. It’s hard work.

9
Types of innovation
There appears to be general agreement on at least two types of innovation — incremental and
radical. Incremental includes the nuts and bolts — what we can expect after a product comes
to the marketplace — solid improvements related to product quality, general operation, and
added capabilities. Radical innovations create new industries. Computers (both hardware and
software) and copying are examples of innovations that developed into new industries. And
telecommunications may be considered a radical innovation in the future.
However, this classification may be too simple. Figure 1
is a matrix that allows us to determine just what kind
of innovation is under consideration. The horizontal axis
covers the range of innovations from components to
macro systems. The vertical axis shows us the range
from incremental to discontinuous.
The horizontal axis includes components, assemblies,
products/processes/ platforms, systems, and macro
systems:
Components — all components in any engineering
discipline — electrical, electronic, mechanical, etc.
Assemblies — configurations of components assembled Figure 1
in some form to perform a particular function or group of functions
Products, Processes, and Platforms — a classification:
1. P
roduct, process, and platform improvements — improvements of all types to existing
products, processes, and technology platforms
2. M
e-too products, processes, and platforms — just trying to get a piece of the business
pie. Meets or slightly exceeds current offerings
3. N
ew-to-the-market products, processes, and platforms — no product on the market
accomplishes the same task — great opportunity
4. B
reakthrough products, processes, and platforms — new-to-the-market but develop into
a new industry
As we traverse the axis from components to macro systems, we begin to see the role that
product and process platforms play in providing new opportunities. Those platforms that allow
us not only to capitalize on prior product innovations, but also to expand the scope of opportuni-
ties. We have good examples in products like 3M’s Post-it Notes, Sony’s Walkman®, and Black
and Decker power tools.
Systems and macro systems — the system level might encompass introducing a product that
includes not only the product, but also takes into consideration the user, location, ease of opera-
tion, maintenance, and disposal. A macro system might include the Chunnel, which connects
Great Britain and France, requiring not only technical innovation, but also innovation in manag-
ing political, cultural, and international issues. NASA’s programs would generally fall into the
macro system category. Organizations may choose to eliminate the macro system category,
since it doesn’t apply to most business applications. Scope, size, investment, and complexity
are distinguishing characteristics. System classification must occur within the organization’s
business context.

10
The vertical axis elements of Figure 1 require some clarification, since there is little agreement
as to how this increased complexity might be designated. Yet, it is important to recognize just
where an innovation might fit on a continuum from incremental to discontinuous.
The lines of demarcation on the vertical axis of Figure 1 grow fuzzier as we progress from com-
ponents to macro systems. There is probably no right or wrong classification. The important
message is that organizations develop a classification system, so they understand the segment
they are working in. Different elements require a different set of resources and organizational
infrastructure.
Here are some general distinctions between the different types of innovation:
Incremental innovation — enhances existing products, processes, and services — not lim-
ited to technology, but includes all related business functions. After the initial introduction
of the first product, examples would include the many versions of the Walkman and Post-it
Notes. This category is, by far, the dominant one.
Architectural innovation — reconfigures the system of components that constitute a
product or process. Design components are linked together in a new way, using many core
design concepts in a new architecture. Architectural innovation requires knowledge about
the components and how they are linked. Examples include the transistor as a replacement
for the vacuum tube, introduction of passenger aircraft, material substitutions, and rear-
rangement of mechanical components to perform a function more efficiently.
Radical innovation — no consistent description in literature or from organizations. For our
purposes, introduces a new product or service that develops into a new industry. Introduc-
tion of computers and copying systems are examples — others include new production
processes or opening up new markets.
Discontinuous innovation — basically makes an organization’s core competencies use-
less by introducing a totally new product or process platform — over time it eliminates a
complete industry — from the horse and buggy to the automobile; candles and gas lights
to the electric light bulb; typewriters to word processors; and the slide rule to the electronic
calculator to computer-aided-engineering. Discontinuous innovations not only make engi-
neers, technologies, and processes obsolete, but also can create havoc with other business
functions, such as marketing and sales, finance, and other functionally dominated groups.
What Are the Sources of Innovation?

Much misinformation exists regarding sources of innovation. Personal experience shows that
no one source exists or dominates. If one could, it would probably be the technical community.
Realistically, the ideas or concepts that eventually result in an innovation can come from any
source, either internal or external.
Internal sources
The internal possibilities span all organizational functions and their people. Suggestions that
become realized innovations come from scientists, engineers, marketing and sales personnel,
people working in communications, and occasionally, from high-level executives. In short, any
person can be the source of an innovation or a trigger for another observant person. Certain
sources push people’s buttons, and their thinking mechanisms go into overdrive.

11
External sources
External contacts also provide a valuable source, but are too often disregarded — customers,
users, suppliers, academics, government, and unrelated business associates. Some academic
research claims that customers are the main sources of innovation.
Innovation involves invention plus commercialization, and users seldom participate in the com-
mercialization process. Innovation involves more than thinking up the idea, it also involves
doing. Even if a user makes a mockup, translating the mockup to a commercially viable product
includes competencies that the originator does not usually possess.
Observation
Other sources of innovation are what we read and what we observe. Most innovators have
breadth of knowledge and are good information synthesizers. Organizations have many people
who can analyze the most complex problems, but usually only from one perspective. A poten-
tial innovation could be analyzed from a technological, marketing, business, or environmental
perspective by the most competent in their fields. But, innovation requires the synthesis of this
information to reach a conclusion. Managing the tradeoffs could look like a gut reaction, but
because of their breadth of interest, innovators have knowledge that goes beyond the formal
analysis.
Size dependency
Innovation sources also depend on organization size. In start-up organizations, the owners or
principal members will most likely be the sources. Their ideas were probably what developed
the start-up organizations.
Multi-product organizations, with division-type organizational structures, will most likely depend
on knowledge of their own sources. But they could miss new opportunities, if they don’t go
outside the bounds of their known technologies and markets. Stick to your knitting is often
touted as a business strategy. However, there comes a time when your knitting no longer has
customer acceptance.
In an essentially single product company, or where products are built on a common platform,
the innovation may be more restrictive. While innovation sources are unlimited, innovation is a
multistage process that focuses attention on the problem finder — the person who visualizes
combinations that can be integrated into a marketable new concept.
The Process for Innovation

An innovator’s life would be much easier if there were seven easy steps to successful product
innovation. Some generic guidelines exist, but no specifics or step-by-step process. Academic
literature generally provides a linear approach to this somewhat undisciplined and uncontrolled
process we call innovation.
E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fusfeld6 in, Generating Technological Innovation, suggest six stages of
the innovation process:
• Pre-project
• Project possibilities

12
• Project initiation
• Project execution
• Project outcome and evaluation
• Project transfer
This model is presented as a linear progression from stage to stage. The authors note that
these stages often overlap and recycle. I question the validity of such a process for the practi-
tioner, even though it is often repeated in many different forms in the academic and business
press.
This particular model gives the impression that innovation is a formalized process that goes
through a series of steps, stage gates, and evaluations. We might use this model after an indi-
vidual or a small group has done the preliminary work, by identifying some new opportunity or
innovation.
And, it may be applicable after the concepts have been developed (technology and markets)
and project possibilities evaluated, but not at the two preliminary stages of pre-project and
project possibilities. After the up-front work is completed, straightforward project management
principles apply. At that time, the objective is to bring the product to market.
The pre-project stage

Just how does the innovation process begin? Does it come from the top-down, bottom-up, or
just where does it originate? Does it come from the individual or the team?
The pre-project stage of this model is the only stage that differs from the normal process of
project management. It consumes an individual or small group, and involves the identifica-
tion of the problem or opportunity. Normally, it doesn’t surface as a Eureka!, or from a bolt of
lightning. It’s hard work, requiring thought and information synthesis from many sources and
disciplines, plus using creative capability to describe and communicate the concept. We are
not talking solely of the idea, but of innovation, which includes all the activities in the concept to
commercialization or implementation cycle.
Identifying the problems or opportunities is associated with different business functions at
many different organizational levels that include:
• New business opportunities
• New products
• New processes
• New technologies
• New markets
• Improvements to existing products, processes, and systems
• Organizational opportunities
• Opportunities with customers and suppliers
This pre-project stage in the innovation process is where creativity in integrating information
and knowledge from many sources takes place. It’s messy. It’s frustrating. It’s often discour-
aging. There are no rules to follow.

13
As J.B. Quinn7 has noted, this part of the innovation process is controlled chaos — not chaos
within the organization, but chaos in the innovator’s mind. The organization isn’t even ready to
understand what the innovator’s thinking about.
What Are the Organizational Requirements?

Discussing innovation in the abstract does not provide much guidance or insight into the com-
plexities involved in its practice. Innovation does not function in an organizational vacuum. It
requires organizational resources and a supportive organizational infrastructure to accomplish
some preconceived list of activities. Too often, we think of resources as including people and
money only.
Resources also include:

• Critical mass of people • Input from customers
• Use of intellectual property • Input from suppliers
• Access to information • Adequate plant and equipment
• Competence in technologies • Necessary operational facilities
• Time • Sufficient financial reserves
Organizational infrastructure includes:

• Purposes for which the organization exists
• Objectives, both short- and long-term
• Strategies to accomplish the purposes and objectives
• Organizational structure
• Guiding philosophy, principles, policies, and practices
• Management support for innovation
• Management breadth and expertise
• Attitudes for acceptance of risk
• Methods and modes of communication
Organizational activities include eight broad categories. They interact with the resources and
infrastructure components. These classes of activities provide a reference point and can span a
continuum that embodies every business activity and function. They can also be classified into
many sub-categories. The resources and infrastructure will be applied differently to different
types of activities.
Activities include:
• Business • Functional Integration
• Products • Effectiveness and efficiency
• Processes • Support staff
• Information systems • External

14
The relation of resources to infrastructure, and to activities
is shown in Figure 2. The goal here is to reach a 1. 1. 1.
condition. This figure represents the ideal, where the 1s
represent the availability of the necessary resources, a
supportive infrastructure that meets the requirements for
the particular activity or project, and a well-defined activity
or project. We seldom approach the ideal, but it’s essential
to know where we are before we begin.
Beware of the infrastructure

Here are a few examples of how organizational Figure 2
infrastructure militates against innovation:8
• If the infrastructure is rigid, avoids risk, or can’t deal with uncertainties, innovation is
either an up-hill fight or has no chance of succeeding.
• If the potential innovation does not link the purposes, objectives, and strategic direction
of the organization, chances of success are very low.
• If the infrastructure does not support innovation, it may be necessary to resurrect the
resumé — not much chance for success.
• If the required intellectual property and information are not available, it’s just one more
obstacle to face.
• If command and control mentality obstructs the channels of communication, forget it.
• If organizations hype programs like quality, continuous improvement, and team building
without substantive and realistic objectives, innovation cannot flourish.
• If the human resources principles are words rather than reality, innovation will not
survive.
Figure 2 allows us to look at the key concerns in an organization and determine whether the
effort adds value.
Integration of products, markets, and technologies

Innovation involves the integration of products, markets, and technologies. This conclusion
may appear obvious, but the integration seldom occurs. Apparently, it is easier to suffer the
negative results of not integrating, than taking the time to integrate. New products generally
require new technologies; new products often depend on new markets or market segments.
New technologies without product or market applications provide no benefit. New products
without new technologies will not survive in the marketplace. Products without market accep-
tance, regardless of technological advances and their internally perceived benefits, consume
resources without providing any added value.
Product innovation involves bringing together the market and technology input very early in the
process. Assume you had the brilliant idea of developing a light bulb that would never burn out
— not just an incremental improvement — but 1,000 or more times the life of a current light
bulb. How much effort would you expend before looking at the market limitations?
Think of the implications for such a product. You could expend a great deal of technical effort
and fail in the marketplace. In this case, there’s no doubt that the technology issues are signifi-

15
cant, if not unsolvable. Think of the consequences of bringing such a product to market and its
social implications.
The product, market, technology matrix

Figure 3 illustrates the relationship between products,
markets, and technologies, the three major components
of the innovation process. Progressing from current to new,
along any one axis, increases the uncertainty and the risk
of failure. Progressing along each axis from current to new
increases the uncertainty and risk significantly. Playing on
the innovation field requires not just accepting the risk, but
understanding how much risk an organization can sustain on
each axis. The critical mass of resources and infrastructure,
as noted in Figure 2, are essential.
As an example on the technology axis: while moving from
Figure 3
current to new on any one axis may not cause significant
difficulties, scaling a second axis simultaneously, such as
markets, adds additional risk and complexity that we must evaluate carefully.
As shown in Figure 3, introducing new products with new technologies into new markets pres-
ents the greatest challenges to management. But, this is what product innovation is all about.
Little, if any, innovation is possible with current technologies and current products working in a
current market position.
New technologies usually require new skills to operate and maintain them, often disrupt current
systems of operation, place extra burdens on the user, and seldom do just exactly what was
originally intended. Usually, we don’t need all the bells and whistles — particularly true of many
software products.
Who Are the Innovators?

Research does not clearly identify the characteristics of potential innovators. Anecdotal evi-
dence, common sense, some inconclusive research, and my own career experiences in one of
the world’s most innovative companies, show that innovators possess certain common traits:
Creativity — not the literary or technology kind, although both are useful. More like, creativity
in being able to synthesize information from a broad perspective that is gained from a sense of
curiosity and observation. Creativity that involves both problem finding and problem solving.
Or, competence in exploiting opportunities — the confidence of the constructive maverick.
Problem finders and solvers — engineers place a great deal of emphasis on problem solving.
I suggest that innovation requires engineers to first become problem finders and then prob-
lem solvers. Innovators are not passive bystanders waiting for the next assignment. They are
proactive, forward-thinkers who go about bringing new products, processes, and technologies
to market.
Broad interests — why the need? Innovation is generally multidisciplinary. It usually involves
at least a system in its application — the product or process, the customers, the users, suppli-
ers, etc. Always keep in mind that innovation involves the marketplace. The innovator must be
sensitive to what the marketplace is looking for, or what it needs, to be more effective.

16
Self-motivation — it’s safe to say that the best motivation is self-motivation. Let’s face it,
self-motivation must be the goal. We accomplish it through challenging projects that force us
to stretch our capabilities. Management philosopies that focus only on, doing it the same way
today as we did yesterday to reduce cost, don’t promote self-motivation. As a matter of fact,
they kill it.
Resourcefulness — applies not only to obtaining the resources, but to fighting the battle that
occurs whenever something new and different is suggested. How many times can you take
‘No’ for an answer, and continue to do what you know is important? How many times can you
be denied the resources, yet continue working on what you believe in? How do you deal not
only with the critics, but also the outspoken detractors? How good are you at bootlegging the
resources that you need? Perseverance is the key.
Strong work ethic — it takes more than working eight to five, five days a week. Innovation’s
a time-consuming process. It requires passion and tenacity in pursuing objectives or dreams.
Remember: one part of the innovation equation is invention.
Becoming the Innovator

Do you want to be an innovator? If so, now where do you go? Be prepared for a roller
coaster ride. You’ll have highs and lows. You’ll celebrate at times, and cry in despair on other
occasions.
So, if you’re ready for the ride, consider these top ten approaches to help you keep your bal-
ance. You need to know what you’re getting into. Herein lies the challenge:
1. Innovation requires more than just suggesting ideas. You must work and rework ideas
until you can convert them into concepts that can be clearly enunciated, understood,
and eventually demonstrated. The process involves thinking and rethinking, and also
making decisions within certain time constraints.
2. Innovation is taking an idea and maneuvering it to the commercialization or implementa-
tion stage to business success.
3. Innovation is about bringing new products and systems online and to market. Keep in
mind that new products require new components and assemblies. Keeping customers
satisfied creates more opportunities for technological innovation.
4. Innovation involves invention, which requires creativity, the competence to synthesize,
and the passion to pursue an uncertain path. You’ll find frequent detours until your con-
cept is validated.
5. You should modify innovation to meet the specific needs of an organization. You can’t
use the same tools for a component innovation that you use for landing a man on the
moon.
6. Sources for innovation have no boundaries. The problem is identifying the sources that
include people, observations, integrating daily visual images, and reflecting on ways to
transfer knowledge and experience from one discipline to another.
7. Innovation is really about project management, except for the messy, pre-project stage.
With no clear path, every new bit of information only confuses the issue. The end
result often has little resemblance to the original idea. Once the innovation is given
project status, you should treat it like any business project. Now it’s up to the team.

17
8. Opportunities for innovation do not come in artfully packaged and beribboned boxes sit-
ting on your desk on Monday morning. Find opportunities and then make them happen.
Use your personal search engine.
9. Successful innovation requires adequate resources and a supportive infrastructure.
Become a diplomat to make that infrastructure work for you.
10. Identify new opportunities. They surround us, if we only pause for a moment to think
about them. As engineers, if we look for opportunities related to effectiveness,
efficiency, and the economic use of resources in our daily activities, we can make
significantly greater contributions to the well-being of our organizations and society.
Are you ready?

Now is the time to start. You’ve been exposed to the fundamentals. You need to link the
concepts identified in Figures 1, 2, and 3. You know what it takes to be an innovator. You know
the required characteristics to be successful. Innovation is not for every engineer. At the very
least, you must be a creative and contributing maverick. That takes a lot of courage, even with
all your competencies.
But, no guts, no glory. If you persevere in the face of certain hardships you’ll come up a winner.
Put your heart and soul into it. If you have what it takes, you’ll have a rewarding, satisfying, and
exciting career!
Bibliography
1
Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Harper & Row Publishers, New York, 1973, pp. 782-803.
2
Andrew H. Van de Ven, “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,” Management Science, May 1986, Vol. 32, No. 5.
3
Frederick Betz, Managing Technology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1987, p. 6.
4
Unknown source.
5
G. A. Stevens and J. Burley, “3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success,” Research Technology Management, May - June 1997,
Volume 40, No. 3, pp. 16 - 27.
6
E. B. Roberts and A. R. Fusfeld, “Generating Technological Innovation,” Sloan Management Review, 1981, Vol. 22, No. 3.
7
J. B. Quinn, “Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1985, pp.73-84.
8
A. B. Shani and C. F. Sexton, “Myths and Misconceptions about the Dynamics of Innovation,” National Productivity Review, Winter
1990/91, pp. 75-84.
Gus Gaynor was the first and former Editor-in-Chief for IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer print
magazine.

18 Best Practices in Innovation
Learning From Others’ Experiences
W e really don’t know much about product and process innovation — how it begins, what
prompts it, and who originates it. We do know that a specific environment is essential to
promote it. All organizations need it, and it generally comes from engineers and their support
staffs.
An innovation is not an idea. It requires invention plus implementation. The invention, usually a
combination of known principles and technologies combined in a new and often unique archi-
tecture, meets some specific needs or wants.
Innovations come in all sizes and shapes and embrace all the engineering disciplines. It is dif-
ficult to find an innovation that is limited to a single discipline or technology. Some people may
be idea generators but it takes implementation skills to bring those ideas to the marketplace.
We do know from the history of innovative organizations that the innovation process requires a
commitment from management and from its engineers:
From management
• Understanding of the innovation process
• Tolerance for exploration and controlled failure
• Freedom to act without encumbering policies and procedures
• A reward system with incentives based on results
• Commitment to provide adequate resources
• The ability to listen
• A sponsor willing to take risks
From engineers
• Technical and nontechnical competence
• Strong work ethic with mental and operational discipline
• Problem-finding and -solving competence
• Self-motivated behavior
• Maturity to ignore organizational indifference or resistance
• Passion to pursue a concept to a conclusion
• Developed powers of observation and synthesis

Top 10 Innovation Tools for New Millennium Engineers 19
By Tom Briscoe
YawnMower — Cuts through material others find boring and bags the essence of new
ideas.
NeuroHoover — Sucks up pieces of information, knowledge, and facts, then filters and
stores them neatly in your brain.
RiskDrive — Spurs you to be creative, even if the status quo would be safer.
DomiNotator — Tumbles out next steps onto paper, based on the research and work
for others.
GroupCeiver — Tunes your colleagues into the same wavelength by synchronizing your
strategic direction.
TeamSmitter — Distills and sends common goals and plans (use with a GroupCeiver).
WarmTenna — Picks up bits of genius and incubates them, until they can take on a life
of their own.
NeoCycle — Exercises your brain; best ridden in a blue sky environment
HamCorder — Stores just the meat of your best ideas.
And the number-one innovation tool for new millennium engineers:
NilliScope — Helps you shoot at something no one else can see...and hit it.
Tom Briscoe, a project manager at Campbell Scientific, Inc., writes about practical management
issues for engineers. (tbriscoe@campbellsci.com)

20 Roundtable Discussion — Engineers On Innovation:
A View From The Roundtable
By Sean Lockhead
The Participants:
John Allen, senior mechanical engineer, with Outokumpu American Brass, Buffalo,
New York. A graduate of the University of Toledo, Allen has been in the copper and
brass industry for 15 years, mainly on the floor as a maintenance engineer, and has
recently been getting into project work.
Kevin Diehl, electrical sales engineer, Kaman Industrial Technologies, Rochester,
New York. Diehl has worked in sales and distribution for the past 11 years — inside
sales, outside sales, and electrical sales. He and his associates look at ways to take
automation to the next level.
Dr. Colin Drury, professor of industrial engineering, State University of New York,
Buffalo, New York. Before joining the SUNY-Buffalo faculty, Dr. Drury was manager
of ergonomics at Pilkington Glass. He has been involved with human factors engi-
neering and ergonomics, much of it concerned with quality control.
Don Roland, vice president and regional manager, Kaman Industrial Technologies,
Tonawanda, New York. Starting in the warehouse, Roland has gone through all the
steps of the organization: inside sales; purchasing; outside sales; branch, district,
and regional management.
Today’s Engineer: (TE) The dictionary defines innovation as the act of introducing
something new. How would you define innovation?
Allen: It’s being open-minded. Something new is not necessarily something completely
new. It is taking technology from one area and applying it to something totally different. For
example, a ceramic bearing that is used in the aircraft industry is used on a welder head simply
because it’s nonconductive. That’s innovative. The one problem I have, a gray area, is the
division between what is innovation and what is technological advancement.
Drury: Innovation is doing something different, maybe not necessarily new, but it must be
useful. You can do something new and have it be a complete waste of time. You need some
focus in innovation. I see innovation in products and processes, and in how humans interface
with either the production equipment or the product.
Diehl: When I think of innovation, I think of someone looking at a problem or puzzle and
trying to decide the best way to attack it. It may be an opportunity to take a completely
different route to arrive at a solution.
Roland: I would agree with what John [Allen] was talking about here. It’s hard for me to
distinguish between innovation and creativity or technological advance. There are things that
are viewed today as innovative, yet they have been around for years. To Colin’s [Drury] point,
maybe it didn’t have a useful purpose at the time, or people were not ready for it.

21
TE: What are the traditional methods for developing new ideas and new products?
Drury: The traditional method has been that someone has an idea, someone comes up with a
product, and [someone] finds a market. It’s a mixture of that and a market needs analysis for a
product. It’s a mix between bottom-up and determining customer needs and addressing them.
Allen: Yes, basically I see the same thing: concept, design, testing, development, and
production.
Diehl: I think coming up with ideas on how to do things and committing them to paper is the
first step. Next, the ideas need to be developed. There may be a need to incorporate the
market needs and market assessment.
TE: How are these methods changing and at what rate?

Diehl: You have to look at the market-driven hunger for something better. You have to get peo-
ple to perceive your product as cutting edge. You see more and more of just getting product
out — get it on the shelves and worry about the bugs and problems later. These fixes possibly
become the next generation of the product.
Allen: I see prototyping. I still see the same thought process though. You now have tools like
finite element analysis. You can now test that model to a breaking point without building a
physical part. I see the steps as being the same, but we have used technology to accelerate it.
Roland: I agree. The acceleration time has greatly increased. For example, I was just over at a
shop where they produce molds. The old way was to carve them by hand. What they do now
is create a CAD drawing and use it to make a CNC program for automatically producing the
molds and holding better tolerances.
I see that rapid development is taking place; however, there is a cost to that in terms of
embracing the changes, knowing that more changes are right around the corner. When do you
make the decision to make the next change?
Drury: I know what you mean. We use rapid prototyping extensively in human factors
engineering to model the whole process.
Roland: Maybe there’s not enough focus on existing products. It might be more practical for
industry to take a look at improving existing products with new technologies.
TE: We touched on simulation. How much of an impact is simulation having in terms of

innovation?
Allen: From a manufacturing standpoint, the motto is faster, cheaper, better. You are constantly
challenged to do that. Computers are becoming the mainstay of an engineer.
Roland: I’ll go back to that mold manufacturer. In the past, it would cost in excess of $40,000
over 8 weeks. They can now do it in a week or less for around $16,000. So there are benefits
in many areas.
Allen: I don’t know too many people that would totally trust a computer model. When you’re
all done with it, you still need to perform some of the physical tests.
Roland: What’s the part you don’t trust?
Roundtable Discussion — Engineers On Innovation: A View From The Roundtable

22
Allen: I’d have to say it’s because there’s always that uncertainty. When you create a model,
you make assumptions. This leads to uncertainty. The real thing tells you the real picture.
TE: What role does project management play in creating the freedom and flexibility to
become innovative?
Allen: Project management has in recent years become a field of its own. In the old days,
you used to have just a project engineer that did everything. Project management is more of a
team concept. It has become a must.
Drury: I think engineers have embraced management in the sense that management has got
something to tell you about how to run a system with multiple people in it. To some extent we
can create procedures for this design process. That makes it easier to get rid of some of the
mechanics of it.
Roland: This team concept and using project management is the more effective way of doing
things. There are two things that you have to make sure of though: first, that the project man-
ager is truly empowered to garner the resources, and second, that the people are told to react
in a timely manner to what needs to be done.
Diehl: You can also look at the innovation that is introduced by having the right players working
on the team.
TE: What kinds of restrictions are found in a highly structured environment as opposed
to a free-thinking model?
Drury: Restrictions are not necessarily a bad thing. They keep people focused. If you keep it
too restrictive, then you just don’t get innovation. You have to find that balance between the
two.
Allen: The people that are more of the free-thinkers are the higher risk-takers. They give you a
little more freedom to try out different things; whereas in a structured organization, everything
has to be approved throughout the hierarchy.
Roland: I guess I can see the same thing from a management perspective. I would want some
history of effectiveness. As I get a feeling of some success in what they’ve done, I might
loosen up on some of that.
Diehl: I agree. You need to have structure to identify the goal and give direction. However, you
can’t have it be too highly structured. You end up eliminating innovation.
TE: You mentioned the team concept. What are the pros and cons of the team approach?
Allen: You get a group of people in a room and someone may start off the conversation. Then
you will get feedback and someone else will jump in with some more thoughts. When you get
that critical mass going, you can do amazing things.
Roland: The style of the project manager is very important to the effectiveness of the group.
It’s a talent to know when to stand back and let people run with ideas and when to step in and
say we’re in left field here. I don’t think enough time is spent training people on how to handle
those group dynamics.

23
Allen: Sometimes there are personality conflicts. It goes back to the project manager and
[that person’s] ability to facilitate the process. The project manager role is something that’s not
understood very well.
Diehl: You are in there with many people trying to go after innovative ideas. You have people
whose egos need to be stroked. People need to have recognition of what they have brought to
the meeting.
TE: How much of the new style of innovation depends on the use of interdisciplinary
teams?
Allen: I think it’s a must.
Roland: Even though you may not have formally defined it as a team, it exists. I’m still going to
go to other sources, in an informal team atmosphere. So, is anybody really operating outside of
a team?
Allen: Most of the experience that I’ve had on it has been project teams. The newest type of
person we include is an accountant. The perspective that an accountant brings is much differ-
ent from what anyone else can. I think it’s good to bring together all the different disciplines
that you can think of to work together on that project. It generates more ideas. The more
ideas generated, the better that team performs.
Diehl: Teams are a driven necessity. Everyone’s doing more with less. It also helps other
people in what they are trying to do.
Roland: I agree but I don’t think they do enough of it. Industry, itself, tends to do things in
silos. People are charged with budgets and interdepartmental constraints. Too often they look
at things that they need to solve within their own area without knowing the whole picture.
Drury: People are generally concerned with just making their own areas better.
TE: What are some of the key nontechnical attributes needed to be successful in this
environment?
Roland: It comes down to communication skills. Engineers must be salespeople too. An
engineer can have all the technical knowledge, but without being able to communicate the
ideas, it’s worth nothing.
Drury: To be fair, it has been changing. However, for example, students sometimes view
some classes as just another class with a presentation at the end. They don’t comprehend the
impact of what they’re learning.
Allen: I think some of the things start to cross into human resources. For example, how do
you deal with conflicts?
Diehl: How are we doing with having industry work with schools to give them that perspec-
tive?
Roland: I think that is one area where we’ve actually improved. It’s much better than it was
10 years ago.
Drury: This idea of teamwork and innovation has brought it all into focus. No longer are you
just sitting around in your little ‘Dilbert’ cubicle.

24
Roland: I would also say business finance is extremely important.
Drury: What we really try to do is teach students how to be engineering managers.
TE: In conclusion, what do you see happening in the area of innovative ideas, methods,
or processes in the near- and long-term future?
Roland: I think people are becoming more aware of ways and methods of working towards so-
lutions. They are starting to understand more about it. These are not new techniques: project
management, team-building, and communication. I just think there is a better appreciation. It’s
also a matter of harnessing what’s out there.
Diehl: You really try to look at where we got many of the ideas we already have. I see the use
of the Internet for many applications, including machine and plant monitoring. There are some
places where it is being used now. There are some plants that are bringing it down to a level
where they can utilize it without high capital expenditure.
Drury: My worry about this is that engineering innovation is something that we do in our jobs,
but have we had any real new social structures? Have we had any real economic innovations?
We live in this world driven by economics and politics. We read about wars and economic
meltdowns and such. Can we do anything about that? There have been some innovations, but
I’m not sure it was by product teams looking for the good of the world.
Allen: I do have some concern. We have now gotten ourselves, because of innovation and
technological advancements, almost to the point of instant gratification. We want it now. We
expect it now. We are getting it now. I see some management philosophies taking this way
beyond where it should have gone.
Some of those philosophies say fail fast, fix it, race on. As an engineer, you should have your
head in a wastebasket, throwing up over that philosophy.
Roland: It’s fire, ready, aim.
Allen: Yes. We have to think things through more thoroughly. We’re supposed to have our
minds boggled every day. Move fast, but do it cautiously. Do it wisely.
Sean Lockhead is a product support group manager at Kaman Industrial Technologies.

(s.lockhead@ieee.org)

Not Invented Here 25
By James M. Vinoski
T echnical people generally think they’re familiar with the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome.
They also generally believe that they and their organizations are free of its pernicious effects
on their efforts at innovation.
They’re also generally wrong. NIH is probably the single most prevalent barrier to innovation
in the engineering world, because it is present to some extent in every individual and organiza-
tion. Unfortunately, because most technical professionals don’t completely understand what
constitutes NIH, it usually goes both unrecognized and uncorrected.
To understand NIH, it’s first important to understand its origin and economic implications —
how it affects our learning and our money-making. Imagine if humans had no way of accu-
mulating or archiving knowledge. Inventive individuals might make advances in technology,
but without a means of encapsulating that knowledge — such as speaking, writing, or draw-
ing — inventions would benefit only the inventors, and would die with them. We would live,
economically at least, like the animals.
NIH means ignoring the archives. Ignoring, to some degree, the benefits that the inventions
and knowledge of others have to offer. It is this concept of degree that throws most engineers
off. We tend to think of NIH in only its most extreme form, wherein an individual or organiza-
tion completely rejects others’ developments. With today’s ever-growing pressure to innovate
in the face of increasingly limited resources (both people and money), this extreme is under-
standably rare.
But NIH also encompasses more limited rejections of, or restrictions on, the use of outside
innovations. This much more widespread hesitance to employ the knowledge of others can be
devastating to innovation efforts. Kevin Barrett, innovation director for Protein Technologies In-
ternational in Memphis, says, “If you’re going to do anything of significance these days, you’re
going to have to find the shoulders of some giants to stand on.”
The Procedures Trap

Often, the very policies of our organizations prevent us from climbing on the shoulders of the
giants. Company standards and procedures can offer tangible benefits, and mandated certifi-
cations, such as ISO 9000, can make them absolutely essential to our business. But they can
also constitute a form of NIH. Almost everything in technology is improving constantly, often
so rapidly that it’s a challenge for engineers to keep pace.
Standards and procedures are therefore notoriously difficult to administer, usually becoming
quickly outmoded. The result is often that the best options for innovation are off limits be-
cause they “don’t fit the standard.”
Procedures and standards should be developed, but we must objectively weigh the potential
costs against the potential benefits. If they’re promulgated solely to centralize decision-
making, they’re a poor bargain indeed. Even if they’re developed for the best of purposes,
unless they’re reviewed and updated frequently and completely, they’ll quickly become the
ball and chain of the organization’s innovation efforts.

26
Whaddaya’ Know?
Equally detrimental to innovation is the simple failure to keep current in our technical knowl-
edge. This form of NIH means we don’t even realize we’re rejecting others’ developments,
since we don’t realize they exist! If you hear yourself saying (or thinking) that you don’t have
time to read technical journals or books, you’ll fall prey (if you haven’t already) to this variation
of NIH.
Technical careers are particularly demanding in their requirement for constant learning. If you
believe you learned everything you’ll ever need for engineering in engineering school, you’ll
surely fail at the innovation aspect of your job. Although many companies offer their technical
employees seminars and tuition reimbursements for the purpose of keeping them abreast
of new technology, we each must accept personal responsibility for keeping our own skills
current.
It’s the Economics

To recognize other sources of NIH, we must understand the economics behind innovation. In
general, ever-increasing efficiencies in industry are the result of a deepening capital structure
and increasing specialization. An excellent example is food: at one time each household grew
and processed all the food it required, but now we have different suppliers who grow the
foodstuffs, who process and package them, who manufacture the packaging machines and
materials, and so on. Such ever-increasing specialization is the commitment of each person’s
labor to what they do best, resulting in ever-increasing efficiencies manufacture the packaging
machines and materials, and so on. Such ever-increasing specialization is the commitment of
each person’s labor to what they do best, resulting in ever-increasing efficiencies.
Failures in the evolution of the capital structure can thwart efforts at innovation by making NIH
unavoidable. One breakdown of this specialization process is internally designed proprietary
technology. In the past, manufacturers commonly developed and built their own equipment,
and such equipment usually became a closely guarded trade secret. In the days when engi-
neers literally invented whole processes, and the machines that made the processes possible,
this strategy made perfect sense. But as other manufacturers became specialists in machine
design and construction, the technology users lost their edge in expertise -- which is why few
companies build their own equipment anymore.
Yet, habits die hard. Some organizations find it difficult to accept that they no longer lead in
technology they originally developed. Many cases still remain where internally designed and
constructed technology is the best and most efficient answer. But such programs should be
reviewed and evaluated from time to time, objectively and unemotionally, if innovation is to
continue.
Software as Capital
NIH can be particularly prevalent in industries where the capital structure simply hasn’t evolved.
Software engineering is an excellent example. Since it remains such a new field, and the mar-
ket is complicated by the fact that its creations are not tangible in the way manufactured goods
are, its capital structure is undeveloped.
Dr. Howard Baetjer, Jr., adjunct professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax,
Virginia, addressed this phenomenon in his recent book, Software as Capital: An Economic Per-

27
spective on Software Engineering. He points out that software development is most different
from the development of hard tools — that where software engineering is farthest behind
other engineering disciplines and has the greatest potential to improve, is in its division of
knowledge. By other industries’ standards, the software industry has astonishingly little
division of knowledge and specialization.
It is true that increasing software reuse within particular firms is boosting productivity signifi-
cantly, improving time to market, and the quality, maintainability, and range of products offered.
Yet, those productivity gains are only the embryo of the benefits possible from software reuse
across firms. In other industries, the various parts and subparts and sub-subparts of almost
every product are built by specialist producers in a very lengthy chain — what economists call
an extended structure of production. But in the software industry, most developers build most
of the elements of their systems for themselves.
This means that NIH is simply the norm in much of the software engineering world today.
Obviously, we can’t individually institute an evolved capital structure where none now exists.
But there are individual and organizational efforts that are taking important first steps toward
deepening the capital structure in the software world, such as the development of pattern
languages and reusable components. Taking an active role serves the dual purpose of maximiz-
ing current innovation efforts, while simultaneously making future innovation easier and more
productive — thus minimizing what would otherwise be a natural, wholesale NIH effect in
software design.
These examples illustrate that anything that hinders our discovering, adapting, and using the
inventions of others to maximize our own ends rightfully belongs in the NIH category. An
important part of engineers’ innovation efforts is the objective, and frequent, evaluation of our
organizations and ourselves, to root out these tendencies. The more we free ourselves of the
pernicious effects NIH has on innovation, the more effective we’ll be.
Jim Vinoski is the systems improvement engineer for Yoplait-Colombo (a division of General
Mills) in Reed City, Michigan. (vinoski@michweb.net)
Not Invented Here

28 Keep Their Clothes On...and More
How to give better presentations, plus substance over style
and innovating like an entrepreneur
by B. Michael Aucoin
S o you’ve tried imagining the audience in their underwear during your presentation. All that
did was make you sick, and it didn’t help your delivery.
Perhaps a better approach might be to engage your audience in a conversation, says Tony Jeary
in “Establishing the Proper Tone Ensures Speaking Success” (Presentations, November 1998).
Tone is mostly about how an audience perceives you, which is a key to success or failure as a
presenter, notes Jeary.
Most business presentations are given as lectures, which makes most people dread attending
presentations almost as much as delivering them. On the other hand, nearly everyone enjoys a
conversation. To succeed, establish a conversational tone, and do it in the first few minutes of
your talk. Jeary offers some tips:
• Talk with, not at, your audience. Use conversational language and avoid large words.
• Involve the audience. Ask questions, and listen to the answers.
• Don’t stand behind a podium; mingle with the audience.
• Use the names of participants, and encourage them to use yours.
• Smile and use humor. Use personal anecdotes and stories.
Try this, and you can imagine receiving a hearty round of applause or a standing ovation — with
your audience fully clothed, of course.
Innovation Is a Weed
If you were to count on one hand the individuals most influential in the digital revolution, you’d
better include Bob Metcalfe. The inventor of Ethernet and founder of 3Com holds court with
his insights on innovation in “Invention is a Flower, Innovation is a Weed” (MIT Technology Re-
view, November/December 1999). Metcalfe offers several lessons he learned on the process
of innovation, among them:
Selling matters. While inventing is romantic, innovation, the process of making a viable
business, is sometimes dirty work. It takes persistent selling to get people to buy into your
ideas.
Most corporate management initiatives fail because they lack integrity and an
underlying respect for people.
Don’t listen to your customers. Rather, choose which customers to listen to. Develop
products they will need by the time you can deliver them, not necessarily what they want
right now.
Be an entrepreneur, not a visionary. Both have visions, but the entrepreneur has plans to
achieve those visions.

29
Don’t Wear the Hat Without the Cattle
Considering I’m a Texan, once I saw the title, I had to open the book: All Hat and No Cattle
(Perseus, 1999). That’s Texas talk for “all style and no substance.” Chris Turner takes on the
complacent corporate world of management by the numbers and superficial thinking to invite
her readers to shake up the workplace. She starts with a premise that most people can relate
to, but few executives would admit: Most corporate management initiatives fail because they
lack integrity and an underlying respect for people. They are predicated on an assumption that
an organization is mechanistic and can be driven from the top. These initiatives squelch the
creative thinking organizations, need, and ultimately make everyone cynical.
To change and grow an organization, you have to disturb the organization out of its compla-
cency. To grow successfully, the organization needs the creative thinking of all its members,
and that can only happen when change is not based on fear. One way to start is simply to give
people free time and space to hang out and self organize. Taylor suggests substantive change
is found through embracing the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson:
I unsettle all things. No facts to me are sacred; none are profane. I simply experiment, an
endless seeker with no path at my back.
Mike Aucoin is vice president of Emprend Inc. in College Station, TX. (m.aucoin@ieee.org)
Keep Their Clothes On...and More

30 Do Engineers Improve Lives?
It depends on the wisdom with which the ultimate
consumer uses the new technology the engineer
helped to create
by Doug Lamm
D o technological innovations really make people happier? It not, what is the broader purpose
of an engineer’s work? For those who develop new medical technologies, the improve-
ment of the quantity of life seems a reasonable broader purpose. But medical technologies
represent a small fraction of manufactured goods. What about those who develop batteries
that live longer? Or faster pick-and-place machines? Or low-vibration motors? Does innovation
really improve not just the quantity, but also the quality of our lives?
Today, technological innovation seems like a good thing. But 25 years ago, a great debate was
raging as to the benefit, and even necessity, of technological innovation. The counterculture
was at its peak, American auto production was at its all-time low, and the personal computer
hadn’t been invented.
Two of the most profound thinkers on this problem were Stanford Economist Tibor Scitovsky
and Structural Engineer Samuel Florman. Both Florman and Scitovsky studied the interplay
between technology and human emotions, and both published their most influential works in
1976. But there, the similarities ended. Scitovsky was generally anti-technology; Florman, pro-
technology. Scitovsky was an academic; Florman, a practitioner. Scitovsky’s arguments relied
on theory and statistics; Florman’s, on literature and history.
Fine Line Between Comfort and Boredom

Scitovsky’s thoughts were most fully developed in his book The Joyless Economy: The Psy-
chology of Human Satisfaction. For Scitovsky, joylessness in the economy derives from the
inevitable tendency of economic activity to promote boredom. The argument that leads to this
conclusion begins with a consideration of the components of human satisfaction.
The first component of satisfaction is pleasure. According to the well-documented findings of
motivational psychologists, we feel most pleasure when engaged in activities that provide just
the right amount of novelty and stimulation. Too much stimulation, and we become anxious.
Too little, and we become bored. Play golf against a pro, and we become embarrassed. Play
golf against a beginner, and we become bored. Play golf with someone of our exact skill level,
and we experience optimal pleasure.
The second element of satisfaction is comfort. Whereas pleasure derives from stimulation,
comfort comes from lack of stimulation. Comfort is characterized as a state of complete
absence of problems; no discomfort. The fully fed couch potato watching a late-night baseball
game the home team is guaranteed to win is experiencing a state of optimal comfort.
Neither pleasure nor comfort alone is sufficient for satisfaction. We need comfort to recharge
our batteries so we can experience pleasure. We need pleasure to relieve the boredom of a
too-comfortable existence. The secret of satisfaction is in striking the right balance between
comfort and pleasure.
Used with skill, products could serve as tools to help us solve problems to achieve optimal

31
comfort, Scitovsky argues. Products could also help us undertake stimulating activities to
achieve optimal pleasure. But because many non-economic sources of stimulation (a good
conversation with a friend, for example) exist, we don’t really need many products for stimula-
tion. As a result, most of our economic consumption is aimed at eliminating problems rather
than inducing stimulation.
Because the economy performs best when consumption is high, our economy tends to over-
promote and overproduce problem-solving products. Opportunities for deriving pleasure from
stimulating or challenging non-economic activities are crowded out by the tendency to over
satisfy needs with the problem-solving products of the economy.
Because the balance between comfort and pleasure is too heavily weighted toward comfort,
we become bored (“joyless”) by technology. The optimal functioning of our economic system
is at odds with the optimal functioning of our personal satisfaction system.
Take, for example, the satisfaction associated with using a wood hand plane. To create a per-
fectly true edge by planing off fine shavings of wood with a sharp hand plane requires a great
deal of skill and concentration. But, once mastered, planing by hand is a highly stimulating and
satisfying experience for a woodworker.
Our economic system, on the other hand, functions optimally when the hand-plane manufac-
turer promotes greater consumption than is required for optimal satisfaction. A good hand
plane costs only about $60 and lasts 50 or more years. Clearly, the market for hand planes
can grow tremendously if the manufacturer develops and successfully promotes $150 power
planers with $10 blades that wear out and must be replaced every year. A trip to your local
hardware store will confirm that, even though the power planer is less engaging and less
pleasurable than the hand plane, power planers outnumber and outsell hand planes by a large
margin.
Repeat this basic process over the millions of problem-solving products of our economic
system and the end result is a world overcrowded with unstimulating stuff, and with people
who have become bored because they have been persuaded to buy the stuff.
Today, technological innovation seems like a good thing. But 25 years ago, a great
debate was raging as to the benefit, and even necessity, of technological innovation.
Pleasure-Producing Engineering Process

Florman counters these charges in The Existential Pleasures of Engineering. Our affection for
technology is subject to cycles, Florman reminds. In some ages, engineers are viewed as he-
roes; in others, as villains. Were Florman writing now, he would undoubtedly view our current
Internet age as a heroic time for engineers. But, writing at a time when engineering was under
attack, he refers to 1850-1950 as a “Golden Age of Engineering.”
Florman introduces a series of literary gems describing some of the many possibilities for plea-
sure created by the work of engineers. For instance, a quotation from Ann Morrow Lindbergh
in Listen The Wind describes how enclosure in a machine can evoke a sense of security:
This little cockpit of mine became extraordinarily pleasing to me, as much so as a furnished
study at home. Every corner, every crack, had significance. Every object meant some-
thing. Not only the tools I was working with, the transmitter and receiver, the key and the
antenna reel, but even the small irrelevant objects on the side of the fuselage, the little
black hooded light, its face now turned away from me, the shining arm and knob of the
Do Engineers Improve Lives?

32
second throttle, the bright switches and handles, the colored wires and copper pipes, all
gave me in a strange sense, as much pleasure as my familiar books and pictures might at
home. The pleasure was perhaps not esthetic but came from a sense of familiarity, securi-
ty, and possession. I invested them with an emotional significance of their own, since they
had been through so much with me. How nice to be in your own little room, to pull your
belongings around you, to draw in like a snail in his shell, to work!
And this quotation from the Dutch novel, Roll Back The Sea, describes the excitement created
by the construction of a large dike:
The great floating cranes, dropping tons of stiff clay into the splashing water with each
swing of the arm. Dozens of tugboats with the white bow waves. Creaking bucket
dredges; unwieldy barges; blowers spouting the white mass of sand through long pipes out
behind the dark clay dam; and the hundreds of polder workmen in their high muddy boots.
An atmosphere drawing boards and tide tables, of megaphones and jangling telephones, of
pitching lights in the darkness, of sweat and steam and rust and water, of the slick clay and
the wind. A dike in the making, the greatest dike that the world had ever seen built straight
through the sea water.
The main thrust of Florman’s work, however, relates not to the pleasures experienced by users
or observers of technology, but rather the pleasures of the act of engineering itself. Florman
views the act of engineering as something humans will always find necessary and satisfying.
In part, satisfaction may come from a certain faith that improvement on nature will be good for
the world. For instance, he quotes Paul Valery in Eupalinos:
Nature is formed and the elements are separated; but something enjoins him (the en-
gineer) to consider this work as unfinished, and as requiring to be rehandled and set in
motion again for the more special satisfaction of man. The masses of marble should not
remain lifeless within the earth constituting a solid night, nor the cedars and cypress rest
content to come to their end by flame or by rot, when they can be changed into fragrant
beams and dazzling furniture.
But primarily, satisfaction in engineering comes from that special feeling of being immersed in
the act of solving problems, and thereby forgetting about our deepest worries.
Satisfaction may come from a certain faith that improvement on nature will be good
for the world.
Innovation Neither Good or Bad

Clear evidence contradicts the views of both Florman and Scitovsky. Consumers are not com-
pletely bored by products; rock-climbing equipment is selling well. And, the results of engi-
neering are often not as pleasurable as the activity of engineering — the intellectual stimulation
of the Manhattan project resulted in the tragedy of Hiroshima. But overall, the exceptions
seem minor compared with the general validity of both arguments.
How then is it possible to believe, at the same time, Florman’s implication that innovation
makes us happier and Scitovsky’s implication that it doesn’t?
Reconciliation of the great technology debate can be found in the surprisingly similar findings
of both authors: Innovation per se is neither good nor bad. Scitovsky writes, “Advancing civi-
lization [i.e. advancing technology] would advance our happiness if our education for enjoying
leisure by putting it to good use increased in step with the increase in our leisure.”

33
Similarly, Florman writes, “It will be claimed that the ancients were able to take delight in
their fabricated objects because they were not boggled by them. The work of the carpenter,
the weaver, and the smith can readily be seen and understood. There is little mystery in the
technology of chariots and armor. The obvious answer to this is that people today would get
more pleasure out of the world if they understood more about science and technology. A good
education should include enough in these areas so that the ordinary citizen is not deprived of
his birthright, which includes savoring the engineering creations of his world.”
In other words, both authors conclude that the good of engineering depends on the skill with
which consumers appreciate and use engineering works.
So, is your faster pick-and-place machine really making anyone happier? Scitovsky would prob-
ably say “no,” because it’s being used to create yet another gadget that will only increase the
boredom of the consumer. Florman would probably suggest it certainly makes the designer
happier and that it might make the operator happier.
But, for both authors, the “breadth” of the broader purpose of engineering is a function pri-
marily of the wisdom with which the ultimate consumer uses the new technology that the
engineer helped create. Both authors suggest that it is the development of wisdom regarding
the satisfying use of technology, more than the development of new technologies themselves,
where the greatest innovations are required.
Doug Lamm is a product manager in 3M Corp.’s Bonding Systems Division and is responsible
for the commercialization of a number of major new products. He first discovered the work
of Scitovsky and Florman while researching his thesis as a graduate student at the MIT Sloan
School of Management.

34 Unleash Your Inner Innovator
By John R. Platt
Ifirst met Jeff (not his real name) at a bookstore in central New Jersey. Jeff was an IEEE
member and an engineer, but he didn’t seem to have a very high opinion of himself. “I just
do my job,” he told me. “I’m not one of those R&D guys.”
This surprised me. I asked him, “Don’t you think you’ll invent something some day?” “Nah,”
he replied. “I don’t think I have it in me to do something really innovative.”
I felt bad for Jeff, because of those two words he used: “really innovative.” Without even
realizing it, Jeff was placing so much pressure on himself and his creativity that he wasn’t
even willing to try.
The truth is, ideas come in all shapes and sizes, and anyone can come up an innovative idea.
But unfortunately, not everyone puts themselves in an intellectual place where they are ready
to take advantage of their own creativity to do something innovative.
So... how do you come up with something innovative? Sometimes all it takes is putting
yourself in the right frame of mind. Here are some strategies and approaches you can take
to help unleash your own inner innovator.
Step 1: Ignore the Nay-Sayers... Including Yourself

The first step toward coming up with an innovative idea is to give yourself permission to
innovate. You can’t do anything if you’re holding yourself back. If you have ideas, let them
live. Write them down. Try them out. Test them. Voice them. Exercise your creativity. The
more you let yourself think in new ways, them more often you will do it.
Don’t let others shoot your ideas down, either. This can happen far too often on an organiza-
tional level. “That won’t work here” or “We’ve always done it this way” are no longer excus-
es. Rigidity leads to stagnation. Don’t be afraid of change. Embrace it.
Step 2: Start Small (Unless You Think Big)

Not every innovation changes the world in one giant step. Sometimes it’s just as important to
make small, incremental changes.
Think about it: can you make a small improvement to something that already exists? Can you
add value to an existing application? If you could improve a device that you use every day, how
would you do it? Can you combine two ideas and make them better or easier when the work
together?
Along the same line, many processes are ripe for improvement and innovation. Start by taking
a look at the processes you use every day. If something takes ten steps, can you do it in nine?
If not, can you trim the time for any of the steps and make them more efficient? Is there an
entirely different way of doing something which will produce the same or similar result? Can
you cut costs? These are all vital questions, and answering them is just as important as coming
up with a new product.
You don’t have to start small, of course. Your ability to innovate is limited only by your ability to
dream. Speaking of which...

35
Step 3: Inspire/Challenge Your Creativity
You’ve probably heard the expression “think outside the box.” It’s a good phrase, but how do
you actually do it?
Here’s one example. In 1975, musician Brian Eno and painter Peter Schmidt came up with a
technique to break themselves out of creative stalemates. They produced a deck of cards they
called “Oblique Strategies.” Each card contained a simple, challenging statement, like “change
instrument roles,””turn it upside down” and “emphasize the flaws.” While some of the cards
obviously have more to do with music than anything else, they have been used for years by
numerous writers and creative people to help point their work in directions they might not
otherwise have expected.
The lessons of “Oblique Strategies” are simple: ask questions, don’t make assumptions,
don’t force yourself down the same path over and over again, look outside yourself, and trust
yourself to come up with the answers you need.
Step 4: Role Play

Let’s say you’re working a particularly thorny problem, and you just can’t come up with an an-
swer. But perhaps you know of someone else in your field — let’s call him Fred — who excels
at this type of work. Don’t go ask Fred for help, but instead, ask yourself: “What would Fred
do in this situation?” Get inside Fred’s head and put yourself in his shoes. By looking at things
from Fred’s perspective, you might be able to role-play yourself into an answer.
This technique also works in reverse. Just ask yourself, “What wouldn’t Fred do?” Sometimes
taking the opposite approach of the experts in your field can yield surprising results.
Another form of role playing can be of great use when working on new products. Try to put
yourself in the mindset of your end-user. How will they use a product? What need will it
serve? What problems would get in the way of their enjoyment? What would make it more
useful? Understanding your customer is more than a marketing technique, it can help you to fill
a need that isn’t being filled.
Step 5: Absorb Everything

Your mind is just like your stomach: it needs to be fed in order to fuel your creativity. Read ev-
erything you can get your hands on. Try new things. Cram your head with concepts and ideas
and realities. Once your head is full, your subconscious mind can start to sort through all of
those little bits of information and combine them in unexpected ways. When something new
comes along, it may trigger a memory of something else, and your mind may combine the two
to create something entirely new.
One man who understands this practice is science-fiction and comic-book writer Warren
Ellis (Planetary, Crooked Little Vein). Ellis is known for the wild ideas which populate his fiction.
He also has a very good take on where inspiration, creativity and innovation come from: “You
take it from everywhere. It’s like making compost: you stack up a big pile of crap until it starts
steaming, and hope something useful fuses together at the bottom of the pile. You take in as
much information, as much experience, as possible, and let it float around until bits connect
together and form something new. That’s inspiration. That’s writing.”
Unleash Your Inner Innovator

36
That’s also innovation. Give it a try. See if your mind can take one plus one and come up with
three.
Step 6: Try, Try, Try, then Fail Again

Not every idea is going to pan out. Don’t worry about it. Learn from your mistakes, and keep
trying. Or examine where you went wrong, and ask if it might lead to something different than
what you were trying in the first place.
After that, start again. You’ve got nothing to lose.
John R. Platt is a freelance writer and marketing consultant. He can be found online at
www.john-platt.com. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
Unleash Your Inner Innovator

10 Thoughts About Innovation 37
by Jim Jindrick
S ay “innovation,” and you might think of such breakthroughs as robotic rovers on Mars,
cloned farm animals or satellite radio broadcasting. While these modern-day advances are
certainly remarkable, more modest innovations get introduced every day. Whether simple or
complex, several rules of thumb apply to all innovations.
1. The key to innovation is being ‘better.’

A new product, service or method that is better than previous alternatives is an innovation.
That being said, not everything new is an innovation. “New” implies that something is
different and unique; it does not necessarily imply that it’s “better.” A true innovation is not
only new, it’s also better.
2. Innovation is in the eye of the beholder.

Determining whether or not something is new is typically a simple, objective process.
Competitive products and substitutes can usually be uncovered quickly through an Internet
search, or by examining trade journals and literature. However, determining whether
something is “better” requires more subjective consideration. Ultimately, customers decide
what is and isn’t better. If something new is better, they buy it. If it’s not, they don’t.
3. Inventions aren’t necessarily innovations.

Inventions are novel, useful and unobvious. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can even
certify inventions as such, and issue them patents. But “better” is not a patent requirement.
In fact, many patented inventions are not better than other alternatives. In fact, fewer than two
percent of patented inventions actually succeed commercially.
4. Innovation is rooted in value.

“The key to success,” said Intel’s Andy Grove, “is continually delivering a better value.”
Products, services and methods that deliver improved benefits at a lower price are a better
value. For example, new personal computers operate faster, have more features and are
less expensive — they represent a better value than preceding models.
5. Innovation has a revolutionary reputation and an evolutionary reality.

Most innovations are incremental refinements of the features, functions, fit or form of things
that already exist. For example, the 1909 Model T Ford had four wheels, an engine, a roof,
doors, brakes and a transmission. But the hundreds of incremental innovations applied to
models since then have made modern automobiles much safer, more efficient and more com-
fortable.
6. Innovation is competitive creativity.

While it takes creativity to conceive something new and better, innovating is more than just a
creative process. Innovation requires a good understanding of the alternatives and substitutes
already available, as well as what will most contribute to improving value.

38
7. Change triggers innovation.
Wherever a new problem needs solving, a new need has to be satisfied, a new want must
be fulfilled, or someone desires something newer and better, an opportunity for innovation
emerges. The Internet was revolutionary because it fostered so many additional innovations,
including e-mail, the World Wide Web, software downloads, e-commerce, search engines,
the TCP/IP protocol and customizable entertainment, to name just a few.
8. Innovation grows through imagination.

Imagination has no boundaries, and the wildest imagination can serve as a source of practical
inspiration for solving almost any problem. Someone first imagined that a computer could be
built that would fit in a small room, then on an instrument rack, then on a desktop, then in the
palm of your hand, and now under your skin! “If you can imagine it,” said Walt Disney, “you
can do it!”
9. Just suppose a little change can lead to innovation.

Just suppose one aspect of an existing solution, product, service or method gets changed.
Just suppose something gets substituted. Just suppose aspects get combined. Just suppose
one component gets adapted or altered. Just suppose something gets magnified or reduced.
Just suppose something gets put to some other use. Just suppose something gets eliminated.
Just suppose something gets reversed. Just suppose.
10. Innovations don’t last forever.

We will always need innovators and innovation. What is newer and better today will be old and
inferior tomorrow. While Alexander Graham Bell’s 1876 invention was certainly monumental
and wired telephones became common, innovative wireless technologies make them ubiqui-
tous today. Innovation is not a destination — it’s an endless journey.
Jim Jindrick is managing director of Wencil Research, LLC, a technology venture planning and
development company based in Tucson, Arizona.
10 Thoughts About Innovation

Is Innovation the Answer? 39
by George F. McClure
In the new globalized economy, U.S. engineers will be competing with counterparts in other
countries where the salaries may be one-sixth of comparable U.S. salaries. Clearly, the work
will move to places where it can be performed adequately at the lowest cost.
Two factors work in favor of the U.S. engineer: productivity and innovation. The information
technology (IT) revolution has raised productivity well above early 1990s levels. As the Wall
Street Journal has noted, “The productivity-growth factor is the ultimate determinant of the
standard of living. Over time, the more a worker can produce in an hour, the more his inflation-
adjusted salary will rise. Productivity grew at just 1.5 percent a year from 1973 to 1995, then
sped up to 2.6 percent between 1996 and 2000, an acceleration many observers attributed to
the spread of information technology. It then accelerated even further to 4 percent from 2001
to 2004 (http://online.wsj.com).”
A 2001 study found that in the non-farm business sector — the part of the economy on which
productivity studies typically focus — output per labor hour rose between 1995 and 2000 at
2.5 percent per year. This productivity increase was more than double the pace seen in the
preceding quarter century since 1970.
Beginning in 1992, the American economy began an extraordinary investment boom. From
1992 to 2000, real business fixed investment grew at 11 percent per year, with more than
half of the additional investment going into computers and related equipment. And as the IT
investment boom took hold, productivity growth and growth in real GDP accelerated as well.
The most powerful reason to believe that this acceleration of aggregate productivity growth is
permanent, rather than a flash in the pan, comes from the underlying growth accounting of the
impact of the IT revolution.
In 2001, information technology capital was growing at 20 percent per year and accounted for
7.0 percent of income earned.
Multiplying these two sets of numbers together, we find that the increase in the economy’s
information technology capital stock is directly responsible for 1.4 percent per year of economic
growth (www.j-bradford-delong.net/TotW/g26.html).
Currently, U.S. workers’ productivity is sufficiently higher than their overseas counterparts’, and
output is comparable per labor dollar — even when the lower offshore salaries are considered.
But as the offshoring trend goes forward, multinational corporations will find it in their best
interest to equip their engineers in India, China and elsewhere with the same productivity tools
enjoyed by U.S. workers.
The other factor is innovation — new combinations of capital and labor that improve quality
and reduce cost. Those who argue that the United States’ position in the forefront of high-
technology innovators is secure are counting on innovation to maintain that security. The
development of the transistor at Bell Labs is often cited as an example of innovative capability.
This invention led to integrated circuits, then to large-scale integration, and eventually to the
Pentium 4, a chip with 125 million transistors on it (http://tech-report.com/reviews/2004q1/
p4-prescott/index.x?pg=1). Intel began chip fabrication operations in the United States, but
today operates 15 manufacturing sites, only eight in the United States. IBM operates eight
R&D centers, three in the United States.

40
Bell Labs began developing the Advanced Mobile Phone System (AMPS) in the 1970s.
Today, three major producers of cellular wireless units are headquartered in Finland, Korea and
Sweden. One is headquartered in the United States but has manufacturing and R&D centers in
China, where it holds 30 percent of the handset market (www.chinanex.com/company/
motorola.htm).
In 2003, IEEE-USA was successful in supporting — and helping to get — federal funding for
nanotechnology research. That same year, some $304 million in venture capital funding was
earmarked for nanotechnology, a 42 percent increase over 2002. Not all of that venture capital
was invested in the United States; some went to Ireland. Whether nanotechnology is the
next big development is not yet clear, although many applications for the technology have
already been identified. How rapidly will this technology diffuse to other countries, even if
it is pioneered in the United States?
Advances in technology are often protected as intellectual property by copyrights or patents.
These provide a source of licensing fee income for owners — at least when countries and
companies observe IP protection. We should note, however, that China has been reckless in
IP theft, to the tune of an estimated $1.8 billion in 2002. The Russian Federation is another
government that condones copyright piracy.
What do you think?

1. Do you believe that innovation
is the answer to maintaining
U.S. competitiveness in a global
economy?
2. If so, do you think new safeguards
should be in place to protect
the fruits of U.S. laboratories and
designers from theft abroad?
3. If not innovation, what other
attributes do you believe will
protect U.S. pre-eminence?
George McClure is Today’s Engineer’s Technology Policy Editor.
Is Innovation the Answer?

The Hat Trick: Having It Both Ways 41
by Donald Christiansen
W e seem to be living in an era where the past is denigrated. Neighbors are embarrassed
if their home, or its décor, is “outdated.” We must have the latest version of an ISP
program or be considered technically disadvantaged. “My iPod can do more than yours” is an
acceptable boast.
Engineers, of course, are agents of change, and so we lay the foundations for disenchantment
with the old, while helping popularize the new.
But our laudable successes bring with them a certain disaffection. The “tyranny of choice” is
one result. Walking through the aisles of cell, answer, and remote-access telephones in Best
Buy is like navigating the breakfast food aisle of a supermarket. What to choose? It is time
consuming and enervating to the uninitiated. If Ma Bell and W. K. Kellogg were still in charge,
selections could be quickly made: “I’ll take the black phone and a box of corn flakes.” We
could go on to more interesting things.
When the choices for the music enthusiast were but three — 78, 45, or 33 1/3 — life was
downright idyllic. A three-speed record player silenced all concerns about compatibility. Now
our DVD recorder warns us: “Do not play back the following discs: VCD, SVCD, SACD, PD,
CDV, DVD-ROM, DVD-RAM, DVD+R/RW, DVD, or audio.”
For a while, some products were produced with the idea that they would not quickly become
obsolete. They would be compatible with later versions and easily updated. During its first
decade (and beyond) of instant cameras, Polaroid designed all functional improvements so
that they could be easily adapted to its first camera.
Do we, as individual engineers, hold any responsibility for assuring the compatibility of
operation between generations of products? Perhaps that rests only with industry associations,
in which we may participate, or with regulatory agencies, to whom we may provide advice.
Standards-setting can be contentious, if ultimately advantageous to all players. In a lengthy
process involving both industry competitors and the FCC, a compatible U.S. color television
standard was hammered out, forestalling competing, incompatible systems coming on the
market. In contrast, the PAL system was introduced in Germany and SECAM in France, neither
compatible with the U.S. system, or one another.
Industry standards can help avoid the expenditure of time, effort and capital in developing
products that are incompatible with that of a more successful competitor. Undue delay in
defining standards may result in lots of nonstandard products, all claimed by their makers to
do the same thing, only better. Many will not survive, as customers tilt toward a winner. The
losers’ users may find themselves saddled with quality and service problems, and, ultimately,
more e-waste.

42
A Down Side
On the other hand, prematurely adopting standards can stifle innovation and limit the paths
available to designers. It may take the arrival of something truly revolutionary to dislodge an
entrenched standard or make it obsolete. In the computer field, standards and protocols are
an absolute requirement. Yet, ironically, their very existence may preclude or seriously impede
progress toward a simpler, more user-oriented computer era. Where systems and their cultural
uses are entrenched, it requires disruptive technologies to advance the status quo.
It would surely be counterproductive to limit design options at the research phase of a new
technology. If standards are set too early, or regulatory restraints imposed prematurely, the
world might lose a fabulous new product we never knew we needed. If set too late, product
evaluation may, de facto, fall to those customers willing to take a chance on one among many
contenders. The balance between the two may be delicate — or not. I don’t have an answer.
Not everyone is opposed to shopping the aisles of Best Buy or serving as a test customer for a
high-tech product that may prove to be short-lived. I must admit that I’m watching the mail for
my new digital watch that also doubles as a TV, DVD, and VCR remote. I’ll probably be the first
on the block to own one, and it’s even possible that the neighbors may feel outdated.
Donald Christensen is the former editor and publisher of IEEE Spectrum and an independent
publishing consultant. He can be reached at donchristiansen@ieee.org.
The Hat Trick: Having It Both Ways

Report Sets Agenda for Fostering Innovation 43
by Terry Costlow
A s the global economy presents new challenges to America’s high-tech leadership, govern-
mental policy-makers will play an important role in setting the stage for success or failure.
A recently released report, the National Innovation Initiative (NII), is tackling these issues in
hopes of helping set an agenda that will help the country maintain its leadership position.
The NII goes beyond stating the obvious that countries with innovative companies and
entrepreneurs will win out, focusing instead on creating an agenda for maintaining America’s
leadership position. That agenda will require cooperation from legislators, educators and
engineers throughout American industry. Implementing a focused strategy is critical for the
United States to remain competitive as the Internet and other technologies heighten the
already intense global competition.
“There are a lot of challenges facing this country, particularly competition from low-cost,
high-innovation nations,” said Chad Evans, vice president of the Council on Competitiveness.
The Council was formed in 1986 “to set an action agenda that drives economic growth and
raises the standard of living for all Americans.” Toward that end, it regularly benchmarks
America’s economic competitive status compared to other countries while also supporting
investment in knowledge creation and innovation. One of the group’s goals is to explain
technical and business issues to legislators who help set the national agenda.
“We need to make sure policy-makers understand the value of engineering. We don’t just
need MBAs, we need engineers to make sure we capture the global benefits as nano-
technology diffuses globally,” Evans said.
The Council is now starting to build its consensus by holding seminars to broaden awareness,
working closely with the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Academy of
Sciences and IEEE-USA, among others.
The NII proposes a three-pronged agenda. The “talent” segment calls for a national innovation
education strategy and empowerment of American workers so they can succeed in the global
economy.
The second agenda item calls for investment in advanced research and risk-taking companies,
while also focusing on energizing the entrepreneurial economy. And the third goal focuses on
infrastructure items that must be addressed, including strengthening America’s manufacturing
capabilities while building a national consensus for innovation growth strategies.
The NII addresses many of the issues facing the electronics industry and electronic engineers.
“Our goals align with the NII. We want to empower workers to succeed with things like
portable health care benefits and expanded assistance to key industries,” said Russell Lefevre,
vice president of Technology Policy Activities at IEEE-USA.
Government assistance to key areas such as electronics and nanotechnology is one of the key
points of the voluminous report. These fields need plenty of long-term research, something
that’s been neglected as corporations focus on product-oriented R&D necessary in hotly
competitive markets. Government funding is available, but the independent-minded electron-
ics industry hasn’t fought for it like some other fields.

44
“The report puts a lot of focus on research funding, making the case for a more balanced port-
folio. It’s been skewed towards life sciences for the past decade,” Evans said. Federal funding
for traditional disciplines such as electronics “have flatlined” in recent years, he added.
More Than Money

Making sure that there are well-trained engineers ready to use this funding is perhaps as
important as getting cash. The study underscores a concern that’s been at the forefront of
many planning discussions over the past few years.
“One of the points is that the United States needs to ensure that it has a healthy labor market
for engineers,” said Ron Hira, chair of the IEEE-USA’s R&D Policy Committee.
Looking forward, there must be more of a focus on getting people to come up with new ideas,
before pushing them into production. That means balancing between business and marketing
types and engineer developers who put them into practice. The key is to focus on creativity.
“We need to educate innovators, and many of them need to be engineers,” Evans said.
This educational thrust will range from kindergarten through college, beginning with grade
school programs that stimulate creative thinking and innovation skills.
At the university level, the NII’s education strategy calls for establishing tax-deductible
scholarships funded by the private sector, as well as creating 5,000 portable graduate fellow-
ships funded by federal R&D agencies. An agenda item that might stir up some controversy is
a proposal to “reform immigration to attract the best and brightest scientific and engineering
students from around the world.” These foreign graduates would then be granted U.S. work
permits to retain that immeasurable intellectual capital here in the United States.
While recruiting foreign students has many potential benefits, it also holds some concern for
U.S. engineers. Many engineers and engineering groups feel that H-1B immigrants coming to
the United States have held down wages and contributed to increased unemployment among
American engineers, who are also concerned with the increase in offshoring of professional
jobs.
Such concerns have already prompted a call for new ways to measure the success of any
efforts arising from the NII. One way to measure success would be to monitor U.S. companies
involved in key technology areas, but, as critics point out, that might not be a good indicator of
vitality in the engineering and scientific fields.
“We can’t just look at whether U.S. companies are succeeding. They may be succeeding with
foreign workers,” Hira said.
Evans is optimistic that engineers have a bright future. And though there are numerous
competitive issues facing the country, many of the report’s creators feel that American
policy-makers, educators and engineers will rise to those challenges.
Terry Costlow has been writing about engineering issues for more than 20 years. He can be
reached at todaysengineer@ieee.org.
Report Sets Agenda for Fostering Innovation

Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation 45
By Chris Mcmanes
T echnological breakthroughs like the Internet, satellite communications and medical imaging
devices were developed in the United States. Congress and the Bush Administration want
to make sure the next major high-tech advance originates here, too, so our nation can remain
the world’s technology leader.
The Protecting America’s Competitive Edge Act, or PACE Act, introduced on Capitol Hill in late
January, will help accomplish this goal. The legislation is based on 20 recommendations from
the October 2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing Ameri-
ca for a Brighter Economic Future.
IEEE Fellow and former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, working under the aegis of
the National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, chaired the
panel that produced the report
“The thrust of our report can be summed up in one word — ‘jobs,’” Augustine said at the
news conference announcing the legislation. “… We must either create jobs that innovate or
we’ll see them evaporate.”
Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and
Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced the PACE Act, which is actually three bills (S. 2197,
S. 2198 and S. 2199). Expected to cost about $9.5 billion in its first year, the legislation
(PACE-Energy, PACE-Education and PACE-Finance) has broad bipartisan support.
“We’re now playing in a tougher league; China and India are competing for our jobs,” Alexan-
der said. “The best way to keep those jobs in America is to maintain our brainpower edge in
science and technology.”
The American Competitiveness Initiative that President George W. Bush announced during his
recent State of the Union address features similar recommendations to the PACE Act. Both
the initiative and the legislation are designed to improve the United States’ ability to compete
in the global economy.
“With more research in both the public and private sectors,” President Bush said, “we will
improve our quality of life and ensure that America will lead the world in opportunity and
innovation for decades to come.”
Russ Lefevre, IEEE-USA’s vice president for technology policy activities, and IEEE-USA govern-
ment relations staff continue to work with Senate staff to help identify positive aspects of the
PACE Act, and to recommend sections that should be changed. IEEE-USA is also working to
build grassroots support and convince other lawmakers to support the legislation. Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) joined the four co-sponsors at the news conference.
When asked the benefit the legislation would have for her home state, Hutchison said, “If we
can get more engineers, we can keep jobs in Texas and in America.”
IEEE-USA President Ralph W. Wyndrum Jr. and IEEE-USA President-Elect John Meredith are
pleased with the PACE Act. It dovetails with their strategic focus on continuing education of
our high-tech workforce; K-12 education for the next generation of scientists and engineers;
and promoting innovation through public policy. U.S. IEEE members should benefit from this
strategy.
46
Wyndrum and Meredith are also pleased that the legislation will foster innovation in the United
States at places like NASA, the Departments of Defense and Energy, government-funded
national laboratories and the National Science Foundation (NSF), among others.
“Innovation has been the hallmark of American engineering,” Wyndrum said. “We need to
retain that and not let it slip overseas.”
Energy
Among the bill’s many proposals, PACE-Energy calls for establishing a DARPA-like agency
within the Energy Department to develop transformational energy technologies that bridge
the gap between scientific discovery and new energy innovations. The department’s Office of
Science would receive double authorized funding for basic research in the physical sciences.
“The National Academies believes that research into energy is important for the United States
to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources,” Lefevre said. “Doubling the Office of
Science’s funding is one way to make this happen. More R&D is going to result in more jobs.”
PACE-Energy also proposes to increase basic research spending by up to 10 percent for
seven years at several federal agencies. Another spur to economic growth is a doubling (20 to
40 percent) of the Research & Development (R&D) tax credit, and making it permanent. These
changes will give U.S. companies incentive to conduct ground-breaking research here rather
than set up shop overseas. In November 2005, IEEE-USA’s Board of Directors approved a
position calling for a permanent R&D tax credit.
“Making it permanent would allow businesses to plan ahead, instead of being concerned about
R&D spending on a year-to-year basis,” said Cliff Lau, chair of IEEE-USA’s Research & Develop-
ment Policy Committee. “We think this would be a tremendous help to research laboratories
and businesses in their long-range planning.”
The word innovation is bandied about frequently without much description of exactly what
it is. IEEE-USA defines innovation as the conversion of ideas and inventions into useful and
affordable products, services and processes. Dictionary.com defines it as “the act of introduc-
ing something new,” … “a creation resulting from study and experimentation.”
“The whole foundation of American culture and economy is based on the concept of discovery
and innovation,” Mikulski said. “When you look at what has made America a superpower, it’s
our innovation and our technology. We have to look at where the new ideas are going to come
from that are going to generate the new products for the 21st century. The PACE Act will help
set the framework and create the building blocks that we need for a smarter America.”
Innovation leads to desirable, high-paying jobs in critically important areas such as health care
and national security, and engineers are our country’s principal innovators. Domenici pointed
out that the United States, with just five percent of the world’s population, accounts for 30 per-
cent of the world’s wealth. Taxpayer dollars invested in innovative research today contribute to
the paychecks and tax base of tomorrow.
“More math and science means better jobs,” said Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy
& Natural Resources Committee. “If we’re not careful, the new flat world will flatten our
wallets.”
Wyndrum hopes the legislation’s R&D focus is more on research, rather than such things as
commercial product development.
Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation

47
“We really need to differentiate fundamental innovative research from development work,”
he said. “We applaud the legislation, and think it would be great to support even more funda-
mental research that is truly innovative.”
Education
PACE-Education has many provisions to improve math and science education in U.S. schools.
Merit-based scholarships of up to $20,000 per year for up to four years would be awarded to
students majoring in mathematics, science or engineering who concurrently pursue teacher
certification and agree to teach math or science in a public school for at least four years. This
arrangement would reduce the number of students being taught these subjects by teachers
who did not major in them. Additionally, up to 25,000 students per year would receive four-year
competitive scholarships to pursue a bachelor’s degree in science, engineering or math.
“These are exactly the sort of things that will improve the flow of qualified candidates into
these critical fields,” Wyndrum said. “IEEE-USA enthusiastically endorses this.”
Wyndrum said his home state, New Jersey, does not allow teachers to teach a subject they
have not been prepared to instruct.
“[The PACE Act] should enhance the flow of qualified instructors in advanced high school math-
ematics, physics and chemistry, which are in great shortage right now,” he said. “New Jersey
has a significant shortage of high school instructors that can teach physics and chemistry.”
So how does the state get around this shortage?
“They don’t offer the [physics and chemistry] courses,” Wyndrum said, “and that’s really sad.”
Finance
PACE-Finance will promote continuing education by providing an annual tax credit of up to
$500,000 to employers who pay for qualified courses to improve or maintain their employees’
knowledge in science and engineering. IEEE-USA is championing continuing education for
U.S. IEEE members with the IEEE Educational Activities Board.
Despite the PACE Act having 60 Senate cosponsors by 1 February — many on key committees
— passage is far from certain. If the Senate does pass all or part of the PACE initiative, it is
hoped that the House will follow suit. A variety of less comprehensive bills dealing with these
issues have been introduced in both chambers of Congress, with hearings scheduled shortly.
Bingaman, ranking member of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, believes
strongly in the bill’s intent.
“The PACE Act will sustain our vibrant science and technology sector, and with it our well-
being, health, environment and security,” he said. “It will invest in R&D, encourage education,
and nurture a business environment that transforms new knowledge into new high-wage jobs.
The passage of this farsighted public investment initiative will ensure that the United States
is stronger, smarter, and leads the world in scientific and technological innovation well into the
future.”
Chris McManes is IEEE-USA’s Public Relations Manager in Washington, D.C.

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation

48 The Stealth Profession:
How Do Engineers and R&D Benefit the Nation?
By George Mcclure
A disconnect seems to exists between the arcane and esoteric realm of basic research
conducted in secretive labs by cloistered engineers and scientists and the familiar and
ubiquitous technologies we take for granted today. But the fact is that many of the technolo-
gies that we utilize daily were born in those very same labs, funded by government programs
and private corporations. For example, it’s widely known that the forerunner to the Internet the
ARPANET was started by graduate students responding to an RFP from ARPA (later DARPA)
for a packet-switching network. The benefits of their advances are obvious and relatively
celebrated, but countless others are less heralded.
I was recently asked to help compile a list of examples of how research and development
(R&D) specifically basic R&D benefits the United States. That list will be used by IEEE-USA’s
volunteers and government relations staff to educate members of Congress and colleagues
about the vital role R&D plays in the economy, national security and social and economic
prosperity. A tangentially related conversation with a reporter about what engineers could do
to draw more attention to their accomplishments prompted me to record the following list of
some of the significant R&D efforts that have filtered into our daily lives. Of course, it’s just
the tip of the iceberg...
• W
illiam S. Boyle and George E. Smith, the inventors of charge-coupled devices (CCDs),
shared the $500,000 Charles Stark Draper Prize, presented by the National Academy of
Engineering at a black-tie gala on 21 Feb. CCDs are imaging sensors that convert light
into electrical impulses, scanned to send digital data. They are used in telescopes and
imaging satellites, as well as in such consumer products as digital cameras. Boyle
and Smith invented CCDs in 1969 at Bell Labs. Usable across the spectrum, CCDs can
image optical, X-ray, ultraviolet and infrared emissions.
• R
esearch into CCDs led to the technology that produced CCD sensors used in digital
cameras. Today, consumers can can buy “single-use” digital cameras at prices that
are almost disposable except that the stores actually keep them when you get your film
developed.
• T
he TV remote control began as the brainchild of two inventors, both at Zenith Electron-
ics Corp. in Chicago. Eugene Polley devised the Flashmatic, a flashlight-like device that
shined light on a matrix of sensors on the front of the set to change channels or turn
the set and sound on and off. Thirty-thousand units were sold. Sunlight proved to be
a problem with this approach. Robert Adler invented the ultrasonic Space Command
remote, with some 9 million sold between 1956 and 1982, when the infrared remote
was introduced. Today, about 500 million infrared remotes are in use.
• A
classic example from the early days of the space program is Pyroceram the material
developed to make missile nose cones that would withstand extreme heat. It became
a commercial success as Corningware.
• H
igh-density electronic packaging was developed first for military and space applica-
tions, but its use filtered down into the PCs, Palm Pilots and Blackberries of today.
Multilayer printed circuit boards with plated-through holes for interconnections are
now widely used. Flexible printed wiring is used for irregularly shaped spaces, for
interconnections to other (“mother”) circuit boards, and is even found in the instrument
panels of automobiles.
49
• J ack Kilby, who pioneered the integrated circuit at Texas Instruments (TI), was
honored for his achievement by receiving the IEEE Medal of Honor and the Nobel Prize
in Physics. In the early days, the ICs were installed in sockets on circuit boards, but
later proved so reliable that they are now often soldered directly to the circuit boards.
TI brought out the early electronic calculator in both scientific (along with HP) and
consumer models. The full-featured ones initially cost $495.
• T
he late Robert H. Tanner, IEEE president in 1972, often remarked that if people
counted the number of electric motors in their homes they would realize how much
engineering contributed to their creature comfort. At the time, most clocks contained
a timing motor, but today many of the timing functions are digital.
• T
anner lamented that TV did not feature Marcus Welby, P.E., a show that would have
focused the public’s attention on engineers. Of course, TV itself was a product of basic
research, and later product development, funded by Sarnoff, Dumont, Farnsworth and
others. The IEEE History Center is a good resource for further details.
• T
he MASER led to the LASER which eventually resulted in the laser diode, used in
today’s laser pointers. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) were first used in small numerical
displays, but today are used everywhere in automobile taillights, flashlights, even night
lights. Infrared diodes made the TV remote control units possible.
• T
he digital computer grew from the need for ballistic tables on trajectories for shells
fired by naval guns and army artillery. The University of Pennsylvania developed the
vacuum tube ENIAC computer in 1946. Grace Hopper, later a Navy admiral (and the
“mother” of COBOL), was initially a computer programmer. In the very early days, the
machines used mechanical relays to perform computations. Insects between the relay
contacts could cause problems, leading to the need to “debug” the machine a term that
persists today in software.
• T
he desktop PC today has computing power that exceeds the early mainframes and
indeed that in the Apollo modules, leading NASA to recommend new electronics with
basically the same propulsion system for the next Moon mission.
• R
etired Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan has attributed our increased productivity,
and the related rise of the information technology profession, largely to the computer.
Without communications satellites and fiber optic transmission cables, globalization of
commerce (including services) would be impossible. The IEEE History Center provides
a 20-page history of the computer.
• T
he microwave oven is a good example of commercial application of basic research, in-
cluding a klystron or other microwave generator, a touchpad, liquid crystal display, digital
timer and power level controller, and an electric motor to rotate the turntable all for less
than $100 retail.
• C
omputers abound in today’s automobiles controlling the engine, the transmission,
emission control system, passenger entertainment system, security system, and even
the timing for door locks and interior lighting.
George McClure is Today’s Engineer’s Technology Policy Editor
The Stealth Profession: How Do Engineers and R&D Benefit the Nation?
50 How the Government Refocused on Innovation
and Competitiveness
By Debra Schiff
Innovation and competitiveness aren’t just empty buzzwords in Washington these days —
they’ve garnered very real support from Congress and the White House, and have inspired a
number of promising legislative initiatives. If Congress can capitalize on building momentum
behind these efforts, new legislation designed to help the United States maintain its technologi-
cal leadership edge could be sent to the President during this session of Congress.
In the Senate, a sweeping package called Protect America’s Competitive Edge Act (PACE), and
the National Innovation Act await action. And in the House, Democrats have unveiled their
innovation agenda, with House Republicans expected to unveil their own shortly. In his State
of the Union Address on 31 January, President Bush outlined his American Competitiveness
Initiative, designed to spur U.S. innovation and better equip the nation to compete in the global
marketplace. With such broad support, it seems likely that some measure of legislation related
to innovation and competitiveness will survive the legislative process. But, in a time of partisan
wrangling over issues like Iraq, port deals and wiretaps, how did such a unifying issue come to
the fore?
The Reports that Galvanized the Innovation Movement

Two key reports laid the groundwork for the proposed legislation and the president’s initiative.
In Part I of this two-part series, we will examine Innovate America, a report that emerged from
the Council on Competitiveness, a Washington think tank dedicated to keeping national com-
petitiveness issues on the front burner. (IEEE-USA is one of the Council’s 25 national affiliates.)
Part II will look at the National Academies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm. When
presented to Congress, these two documents heightened lawmakers’ awareness that America
is increasingly falling behind on moving ahead. And that the reports the country’s top minds in
business and education authored these reports didn’t hurt.
Because the various measures and initiatives focus on improving America’s competitiveness
and innovativeness via math and science education, as well as investments in research and
development, IEEE-USA is paying close attention to the legislative activities around them
and corresponding with key decision-makers to urge them to take advantage of the favorable
climate to pass legislation sooner, rather than later. Russ Lefevre, IEEE-USA’s vice president
for Technology Policy, has been visiting lawmakers to let them know the key points IEEE-USA’s
members wish to see in the final bill(s):
• Continuing-education tax breaks
• A permanent, doubled research and development tax credit
• A doubled R&D budget for the National Science Foundation
• An increased R&D budget for the department of energy
• A
ll the education improvements recommended in both Innovate America and Rising
Above the Gathering Storm
“IEEE-USA thinks the continuing education credit is very important. When the half-life of an
engineer is five years, it’s quite clear that the days when an engineer could spend his or her
career shepherding a specific computer program are long gone. You must be able to move
from one discipline to another discipline, and you must be able to do it quickly,” says Lefevre.
51
Innovate America
The movement to raise awareness about America’s need to keep innovating to hold onto its
competitive edge is not new. Back in the mid-1990s, The Council on Competitiveness coined
the phrase “innovation ecosystem” as a way to communicate the network of connections that
link together all the people and organizations that produce innovations, from scientists and
engineers to entrepreneurs and corporate managers and even federal, state and local policy-
makers. Deborah Wince-Smith, president of The Council on Competitiveness, said: “We call it
an ecosystem because all of the players are interdependent and each has a unique role to play
in the innovation process.”
“Because of its strength and diversity, America’s innovation ecosystem continues to lead the
world. We are better than anyone else at translating new ideas into marketable products and
services. But the competition is increasing, and we will need to work even harder to maintain
our historic advantage,” she cautioned.
Wince-Smith said the innovation manifesto, Innovate America, was born out of a need to better
understand the nature of innovation’s evolution. “What really galvanized the launch was that
not only are global forces accelerating in terms of the competition and the emergence of high-
skilled, low-cost innovators, but also that the process of innovation itself has begun to radically
change,” she said.
The think tank knew that it needed to understand how innovation has changed and where it is
going as a dynamic system for wealth and value creation. In turn, such understanding would
lead to a systemic agenda of what the nation needs to do, “not just what the government
needs to do, but what the private sector, academia, and the public-at-large need to do to make
our country continue to be a place that attracts high-value investment, and where high-value
economic activity is performed,” Wince-Smith commented.
After a year of research and an interim report that turned more than a few heads, the Council
released Innovate America in December 2004. Senators John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Joe Lieber-
man (D-Conn.) introduced the National Innovation Act in December 2005, which takes the the
report’s recommendations and turns them into legislation. “The Ensign and Lieberman bill has
as much of Innovate America in it as it could,” said IEEE-USA’s Lefevre. More than 25 senators
from both parties have signed on to it so far, including Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who crafted the PACE legislation.
The national innovation agenda, as set forth in the report, is divided into three primary
categories:
1. Talent
2. Investment
3. Infrastructure
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness

52
Next Steps
Looking ahead, Wince-Smith believes that the United States is on the cusp of a manufactur-
ing revolution. “The concept that manufacturing is dirty, dumb, dangerous and disappearing
is really not correct. We need to accelerate the talent, workforce, innovation and employment
systems that migrate our economy and industry into the 21st century manufacturing environ-
ment — where design, use of high-performance computing, and the logistic supply chain are
brought together for new value creation,” she says.
Wince-Smith also sees the energy challenges of sustainability, the need to have a balanced
portfolio, and reducing foreign dependency as high priorities. “We know companies are mak-
ing location decisions based on the cost and reliability of energy. There’s a real tipping point on
energy. That relates to manufacturing too, with the cost of the reliance on petroleum. Energy
challenges and manufacturing opportunities are all converging, so it’s a real exciting time.”
Check back for Part II of this series, on the National Academies report Rising Above the
Gathering Storm, in next month’s issue of IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Online.
For more information on the competitiveness issue, visit IEEE-USA’s resource page at: www.
ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/innovation.
Debra Schiff is a freelance writer who has written for EE Times, IEEE Spectrum and Electronic
Design. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness

How the Government Refocused on Innovation 53
and Competitiveness (Part II)
By Debra Schiff
L ast month, we looked at the Council on Competitiveness’ influential report, Innovate

America, which provided the foundation for some pivotal legislation that is making its
way through Congress. That report also paved the way for a second (and equally influential)
report from the National Academies called Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. In Part II of this series, we will examine
this report, and how it is changing the political landscape in America’s examination of its own
competitiveness challenge.
Recent Winds of Change

Two innovation-centric initiatives President Bush announced during his State of the Union ad-
dress on 31 January were the Advanced Energy Initiative and the American Competitiveness
Initiative. Advanced Energy includes a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research, to be
hosted by the Department of Energy. The initiative has two arms:
• investments in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technolo-
gies, and nuclear energy
• research for hybrid, electric, ethanol and hydrogen-powered cars.
The American Competitiveness Initiative is a movement intended to plant valuable seeds in the
U.S. economy through innovation and math and science education in the K-12 grades.
President Bush wishes to commit $5.9 billion in FY 2007, and more than $136 billion over the
next 10 years, to increase investments in R&D, strengthen education, and encourage entrepre-
neurship and innovation. Specifically, nanotechnology, supercomputing and alternative energy
would be the chief beneficiaries of the proposed increases. The president’s proposed doubling
of the federal basic research budget in the physical sciences over the next 10 years came as
a bit of a surprise to some in the science and engineering community, after his administration
had cut the federal science and technology basic research budget by 1.2 percent a year ago,
while keeping applied research flat.
Why the Turnaround?

In May 2005, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), members of
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, challenged the National Academies
to assess the nation’s ability to compete and prosper in the 21st century — and to propose
specific actions to enhance the likelihood of success in that endeavor.
To that end, the National Academies formed a committee — a veritable who’s who of
CEOs, Nobel laureates, university presidents and former presidential appointees to tackle the
assignment — which, in turn, consulted some 60 subject matter experts and numerous prior
studies on America’s future prosperity. The committee chair was none other than IEEE Fellow
and retired chair and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, Norman R. Augustine. Other
luminaries on the committee include Craig Barrett, chair of Intel; Steven Chu, Nobel prize
winner in physics; Charles Holliday Jr., chair and CEO of DuPont; Richard Levin, president of
Yale University; Lee R. Raymond, chair and CEO of Exxon Mobil; among many others. Notably,

54
many of the luminaries involved in the National Academies’ report also participated in the draft-
ing of Innovate America.
When Augustine faced the 109th Congress on 20 Oct. 2005 to relate their findings, he did not
beat around the bush. “It is the unanimous view of our committee that America today faces
a serious and intensifying challenge with regard to its future competitiveness and standard of
living. Further, we appear to be on a losing path,” he said. Raising the specter of lost jobs,
Augustine shared some of the salient points from his committee’s report, Rising Above the
Gathering Storm.
Following is a sampling of the report’s key points:
• Americans are living off the benefits of past investments
• For the cost of one engineer in America, a company can hire 11 in India
• In international tests involving mathematical understanding, U.S. students finished in
27th place
• T
wo thirds of U.S. high-school students are taught science by teachers with no major or
certificate in chemistry or physics
Rising Above the Gathering Storm made 20 specific recommendations to steer Congress in the
direction of a prosperity initiative. Those recommendations are divided into four primary focus
areas:
• Improve K-12 science and mathematics education
• Invest in long-term basic research
• A
ttract and retain the best and brightest students, scientists and engineers from the
United States and around the world
• Create and sustain incentives for innovation and research investment
Congress responded quickly. Less than two months after the report came out, Senators
Alexander, Bingaman, Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced an
omnibus bill called the Protect America’s Competitive Edge Act (PACE). On 8 March, the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted unanimously to pass PACE-Energy
(S. 2197) out of the committee for full Senate consideration. Meanwhile, the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Education and Early Childhood
Development has held hearings on the other half of the package, PACE-Education (S. 2198),
but no vote has been recorded.
Does the PACE package adequately address the report’s recommendations? Augustine thinks
so, saying that the National Academies report “is obviously broad and cuts across a lot of
parts of the Congress in terms of committee jurisdictions, but they went through all 20 of our
recommendations and I think did a remarkably good job.”
Show Me the Money

Questions about funding for PACE keep popping up because Domenici and Mikulski are key
appropriators in the Senate. Says Augustine, “The current funding probably makes up a small
part, but the creation of a new curriculum in science and technology for grades K-12 is the kind
of thing that foundations are usually pretty amenable to addressing. Some of the other parts of
the bill package are the kinds of initiatives that companies have been spending money on, but

55
not in any coordinated fashion. Maybe there’s a chance to get more bang for their buck here.”
Private funding will be a very small part of the $9.5 billion package.
A big chunk of the costs of the proposed package is attributable to the R&D tax credit. By dou-
bling the R&D tax credit from 20 to 40 percent, and, more importantly, by making it permanent,
Congress and the president will encourage companies to commit funding to research in the
longer term because they can now count on taking the tax deduction. “Just making the state-
ment that this is permanent would be an enormous benefit,” says Augustine.
Congressman Rush Holt (D-N.J.) agrees. Said Holt, “The R&D tax credit rewards companies
that invest in research. The problem is that it has been used as an annual means of fundraising.
It’s only renewed year by year. Each year, hosts of lobbyist come in and say â€˜we need you to
renew the R&D tax credit.’ So the leaders renew it for one more year. If you want companies
to make decisions that are affected by the tax credit, they’ve got to know that the tax credit is
permanent, that it will be there 10 years from now.”
Finally, some of the funding will come from projects that are phasing out, so the funds will be
diverted. But most of the money, says Augustine, will be new money, from new allocations
from the federal budget. “If we think this is important, they can find the money to fund this.
The question is the importance you attach to it,” he says.
Why the Department of Energy?

Part of Rising Above the Gathering Storm focuses on energy as a centerpiece of the work to
be done in science and technology. Augustine explains, “If you go back to post-Sputnik when
President Kennedy increased the R&D budget and addressed K-12 and higher education, he set
up the space program as a centerpiece to pull it together. We felt that we needed some cen-
terpiece to pull this together.”
America’s top technical problems include the provision of energy because it affects national
security and the economy. Just about everything is influenced heavily by energy issues today.
For example, if a local school system budgets a certain amount for fuel, when the fuel prices
increase exponentially, that school system will resort to cutting the number of teachers on staff
to make up for the fuel needed to run its buses and heat its classrooms.
“The most important consideration is that our focus was on physics, chemistry, mathematics
and engineering. Energy happens to be an area that more than most any other encompasses
those specific fields. If you want to invest in math and the physical sciences, energy is a great
place to pull it all together,” says Augustine.
“We’ve laid out in our report the essential ingredients. It’s one of those things that it will suc-
ceed if they get good people on it. If they don’t, it won’t. It will be up to the Department of
Energy to put the meat on those bones,” says Augustine.
Next Steps
The handful of bills introduced in Congress that cover all or part of the Rising Above the Gath-
ering Storm and Innovate America reports will have to be reconciled before the voting begins.
“Then, the Washington system will do what it usually does, evaluate how sound a case we’ve
made, and the leaders will appropriate the funds and approve the projects, or they won’t,” says
Augustine, taking a wait-and-see approach.
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness (part ii)

56
Congressman Holt has a better idea for Augustine. He suggests taking a page from the 9-11
Commission. “They introduced a good report. It was so good, it became a bestseller. Very
little of the stuff they had recommended would have been implemented, if they had not formed
an office in Washington with marketers, lobbyists and press people. After the commission
ceased to exist, the authors formed an office in Washington whose purpose was to hold Con-
gress’s feet to the fire, lobby and keep the spotlight on their legislation,” he explains.
Warns Holt, “The number of similar reports sitting on the shelves and the number of bills intro-
duced in Congress based on those reports that just died when that session ended are legion.
So, Rising Above the Gathering Storm could easily be just another good report unless the
authors actually follow up on it and devote time and money to see that congress doesn’t just
leave the report on the shelf.”
IEEE-USA and Innovation

IEEE-USA supports reforms that will channel federal resources toward long-term research goals
that will foster innovation. Such investment helps foster innovation in two ways. First, it will
generate scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs that drive innovation, indirectly
creating entire new industries. Second, the research itself provides valuable educational oppor-
tunities for the next generation of engineers and scientists, opportunities that cannot be repro-
duced any other way.
IEEE-USA believes that legislators and administration leaders should work to strengthen the
nation’s current and future engineering workforce by improving the U.S. education system and
enhancing life-long employment opportunities for scientists and engineers. IEEE-USA supports
the recommendations set forth in Rising Above the Gathering Storm, with specific emphasis on
those recommendations targeted at:
• Improving the nation’s education system from preschool through graduate school and
beyond, with special emphasis on improving math, science and communications skills in
grades K-12
• E
arly recognition and support for students with aptitude and passion in Science, Tech-
nology, Engineering and Math (STEM) fields
• Strengthening the skills and recruitment of science and mathematics teachers
• Increasing incentives for individuals to pursue an education and career in STEM fields,
and promote more effective utilization of STEM personnel by public- and private-sector
employers
• M
aking continuing education available to practicing scientists and engineers R&D Policy
Objectives
IEEE-USA further believes that federal research and development policies and investments
should be redirected, as recommended by the Council on Competitiveness’ Innovate America
report and in the National Academy’s report, to:
• Intensify support for research in the physical sciences and engineering to achieve a
more robust national R&D portfolio
• E
nact a permanent, restructured research and experimentation tax credit, and extend
the credit to research conducted in university-industry research consortia
• A
ddress the looming energy concerns of the nation by supporting appropriate innovative
energy technologies

57
• P
romote innovative research through new approaches, such as establishing
innovation “hot spots” to capitalize on regional assets and leverage public and private
sector investments, and/or reallocating at least three percent of agency R&D budgets
to “Innovation Acceleration” grants
Debra Schiff is a freelance writer who has written for EE Times, IEEE Spectrum and Electronic
Design. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness (part ii)

58 Engineer, Promote Thyself
By Robin C. Peress
N ext to doing the right thing, the most important thing is to let people know you are
doing the right thing.
So said industrialist John D. Rockefeller about the value of putting your name and good works
where others can see them especially those who can boost your image.
Self-promotion doesnt come easily to everyone. It may even seem incompatible with the
straight-arrow engineering profession. But engineers as professionals who change society for
the better are entitled to speak up about their entrepreneurship, their innovations, their awards
and new contracts, the impact of engineering on our everyday lives, and so much more. You
can employ a few subtle, inexpensive, time-tested methods to promote yourself, and spread
goodwill for the entire profession at the same time.
Two well-known channels of self-promotion are public relations (PR) and advertising. Both seek
to communicate your message to a predefined target audience. With advertising, you spend
money to say what you want, how, where and when you want to everything from a 10-second
radio spot to a billboard. Advertising is about generating sales.
Unlike paid advertising, however, public relations is a mutually beneficial relationship with the
mass media, which serves as your spokesperson for free. PR is about creating good vibes.
Public relations affords you more credibility and status because your words are reported by, and
get the tacit endorsement of, the media. The payoff is not in sales per se, but in heightened
awareness and a positive perception of a person, product, service, even a cause. As Marshall
McLuhan once said, the medium is the message. The information you supply to the media
becomes the news. And everyone wants news.
What might you send to the media? You can write a letter, article or news release and submit
it to a newspaper, t.v. or radio station, even a Web site. Your letter, release or call, however,
must have a news hook, i.e., some connection with a recent or unfolding event (local, national
or international). If your information sparks the editors interest, the media will report it as news
coverage. The idea youve hopefully planted in the readers mind is: this is someone of value.
Welcome to public relations.
Another example: In a former life, this writer was assistant director of PR for Hunter College in
New York City. On the morning that Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont abruptly announced his
defection from the Republican Party to become an Independent, I called WCBS-880 news radio
eight minutes after Jeffords statement to say that Hunter College had an expert in Congres-
sional matters on its faculty; would they like to talk to him? Our expert was interviewed on the
air about 10 minutes later. The benefit to listeners: they learned much more about party defec-
tions. The message: Hunter College is a place where intellectual and academic excellence is
always on tap. We wanted those in Albany who funded our school to know this.
So: Good timing, an understanding of the needs of a given media outlet, and the deft use of
language are essential for using PR. Also essential is the need to be on the qui vive for oppor-
tunities to contact the media. But the value of third-party endorsement by the media is worth
the effort. Whats more, you can further capitalize on the coverage by saving and disseminating
the resulting news clips to further market your services.

59
If youre willing to work at shaping ideas and attitudes under the radar versus taking out an ad,
public relations is a respected business tool and a creative challenge. Its not something you
start and stop; PR is an ongoing pursuit. There is nothing disingenuous about it, no snake oil
or spin, just honest communication thats timed and targeted to make the media work for you.
Here is a mixed bag of self-promotion and image-enhancing techniques, culled from sources in
public relations, hi-tech marketing, e-business, and the engineering profession itself, that you
can start using today.
Start talking on an online forum, courtesy of the IEEE. Geographical distance dissolves,
as do time zones and other differences, when you interact with fellow engineers in any of the
dozens of online communities sponsored by the IEEE. In 10 minutes you can begin mentoring
someone on the other side of the country, swap entrepreneurial tales and advice, track down
a piece of equipment, share your concerns about intellectual property rights, make a new
contact, and promote yourself as an expert in your field to all those you write or who read
your exchanges. Whether you choose the Entrepreneurs Village, the consultants’ database,
or forums on a plethora of topics from Bioinformatics to Embedded Systems to Security and
Privacy, seize the chance to talk about yourself.
Take stock of your image. What do your own materials say about you? Marcia Polese,
President of Polese Clancy, Inc., a Boston-based firm specializing in integrated marketing, says
being consistent in your materials brochures, pitch letters, Web content, fact sheets, etc. is
paramount. Are all your messages in tune with the image you are trying to project? If you say
you are service oriented, for example, don’t wait two weeks to get back to a prospect who
requests a proposal or a meeting. In describing your own merits, Polese stressed the impor-
tance of citing sources of authority that support your assertions and/or reputation, including
your educational achievements, awards, articles about you, commendations, or endorsements
from prestigious companies or admired individuals. Nothing sells like third-party endorse-
ments, says Polese, whose company serves clients in high technology, financial services,
telecommunications and biotechnology. Dont forget to tout your durability that is, how long
your company has been in business and stood the test of time. She also recommends that
you write up case studies featuring the kinds of projects you want to be known for, and include
a list of clients on your Web site. To observe these principles in action, see Poleses own site,
www.poleseclancy.com.
Beef up your Web presence. As reported in Website 101: Put Yourself in the User’s Shoes
(TE Online, May 2006), appearance and usability are the top reasons why Internet users
will stay to peruse your Web site, according to research by Consumer Reports. The way you
present information online is virtually synonymous with who you are.
Revisit your site to make sure it offers an easy-to-read font, simple color scheme, a minimum
of slow-loading graphics, consistent headings, everyday English wording and helpful links.
Polese says to be sure that your site is registered on all the key search engines and to employ
search engine optimization (SEO). SEO is the art and science of using the right keywords and
phrases that will turn up on key search engines when users are seeking content like yours,
thus driving the right customers to your online door. One of the more understandable tutorials
on search engine optimization can be found at a consultants site, www.bruceclay.com.
She suggests also that you tailor some of your site content to niche markets, the opinion
leaders who can be important referrals for you. Are they architects and other engineers?
Engineer, Promote Thyself

60
Government agencies? Attorneys? Include content on your site that addresses the specific
needs and interests of each of these groups, and be sure to include a button that says “e-mail
this article to a friend.” It’s a great way to get referrals.
Write a Letter to the Editor. Pick up almost any daily newspaper or business magazine and
youre bound to find an article that touches on engineering. That article could be a springboard
for you to write a Letter to the Editor. Your best bet for getting your letter into print is to re-
spond to the right article at the right time to the right editor. Your gut will tell you when to act;
youll find yourself thinking, I know all about that, and something more, or My experience tells
me otherwise, or Theres something wrong here; I have to speak up. Here are some guidelines:
1. Write a letter if you have a compellingly strong, unique and educated perspective re-
garding the articles subject. Quote a surprising statistic. Mention any books or articles
youve written on the subject.
2. Seize the moment. Write and send your letter on the same day that the newspaper
story ran. The lead time is longer for magazines; you can call the general number and
find out the deadline. But dont wait more than a day or so either way, lest your ideas
lose their edge.
3. Write a succinct letter of up to two short paragraphs, unless the story contained a seri-
ous factual error which you are setting straight. Get to the point in the first sentence.
Be brief, clear, accurate and use laymens terms rather than technical ones, unless you
are writing to a technical audience. Keep an eye on spelling and punctuation your engi-
neering expertise could get deflated if there are typos or other flaws in your letter.
4. Make sure you send it to the right editor. Some publications have a catch-all mailbag,
but some newspapers have separate Letters editors. Check first. However, dont call
the editor to inquire about a letter youve already sent; no matter how articulate or re-
spected you are, they either have the space to print your letter or they dont. Try another
time, on another subject.
Become an Expert/Spokesperson for the Press. Like the Hunter College faculty expert, you
have specialized technical knowledge for which there is great demand in the media. Polese
says, The media needs to be able to call experts to get objective opinions about engineering
topics when they arise. For example, Boston’s Big Dig was recently the site of a tragedy when
sections of a tunnel collapsed on an automobile, killing one of the passengersEngineers who
can offer insight or at least a perspective in addressing situations like this are needed to help
frame or interpret these kinds of events, even if they don’t have specific answers. Reach out
to the the press in your area and offer to take calls when a story needs an engineering point of
view.
Robin Peress is a freelance writer in Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y. Comments may be submitted

to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
Engineer, Promote Thyself

U.S. Competitiveness and the Profession of Engineering 61
By James L. Flanagan
This article has been reprinted with permission from The Bent of Tau Beta Phi (Fall 2006).
A s globalization advances, it has become commonplace (possibly even fashionable) to

voice concern over the steady erosion of U.S. prominence in science and engineering.
The concern is particularly centered in the physical, computer, and engineering sciences. It is
less so in the life and pharmaceutical sciences. A veritable stream of editorials, media features,
and government reports have repeatedly reflected alarm over the inexorable decline in U.S.
technical capabilities — a decline that has been apparent for much of a decade. The concern
is genuine. It was dramatically reinforced by a spike in unemployment of domestic computer
scientists and engineers in the 2003 period, reflected by data in the fall 2005 issue of The
Bridge. While scientists and engineers have historically faired better in the labor market than
college graduates as a whole, the peak has been interpreted as a twenty-year high, trebling the
traditional level of about 2 percent to the neighborhood of 6 percent. Major contributing fac-
tors were bursting of the dot-com bubble and outsourcing (and offshoring) compelled by foreign
competition.
Number of Nobel prize winners by selected countries
(counts estimated from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Before 1940-42 After 1940-42
Germany 18 U.S. 144
France 18 U.K. 48
U.K. 18 Germany 33
U.S. 10 France 20
Switzerland 10 Russia 18
Netherlands 9 Switzerland 14
Russia 3 Japan 12
China 0 Netherlands 9
Japan 0 China 5
Medal image: ®© The Nobel Foundation
The extensive public discourse has so far had little telling effect, and minimal actionable
response from government leadership. But fortunately, in part through the prestige of the
National Research Council and its October 2005 committee report “Rising Above the Gathering
Storm,” the latent crisis is being more widely apprehended, and initial proposals are being put
forward to blunt the threat. Early steps include explicit recognition of the erosion of scientific
leadership in the President’s State of the Union message in January 2006, significant bipartisan
collaboration in the Senate at about the same time in one bill “Protect America’s Competitive

62
Edge” and another “National Innovation Act,” and the White House embracing some
recommendations of the NRC report in its proposed budget for 2007. It would seem that
quantitative analyses of long-term impacts on the U.S. economy, on national security, and
on quality of life, education, and competitiveness would crystallize the urgency and stimulate
vigorous action. But as yet it is not clear how these proposals may come together. The legis-
lative process advances slowly, and actionable proposals must get through numerous House
and Senate committees before a resulting consensus emerges from Congress later in the year.
Much of the science and engineering community is following this critical process anxiously.
This is an interval during which credible public advocacy can have significant influence. At least
two groups are actively socializing the issue in the congressional venue — one championed
by technical interests of industry, and another by a collection of professional and educational
societies. The matter cries for serious organization, leadership, unity, and focus to generate
unrelenting pressure that follows the process to successful conclusion. For the immediate
time, however, unfavorable employment factors are likely to persist. The spring 2006 issue
of THE BENT mentions that offshoring is expected to grow at about 30-40 percent per year
in the 2003-06 frame, and that 52 percent of engineering jobs are estimated to be amenable
to offshoring in the long term. This climate may be disruptive to the engineering profession
and can severely dampen enthusiasm among young students seeking to make career commit-
ments in the discipline. On the opposite side, however, rapidly-developing foreign countries
(especially in Asia) are mounting extensive efforts to attract their U.S.-trained nationals back to
their home environments.
Also, as a recent favorable circumstance, notable rekindling in the U.S. economy presages a
potential increase in demand for science and engineering expertise.
Following World War II the U.S. enjoyed what might be termed a free ride in marketing to the
rest of the world. To meet the military threat of this time, an enormous manufacturing capabil-
ity was marshaled by a dedicated citizenry. Budget allocations for research and development
grew from a pre-war level of about 0.5 percent of the gross domestic product to 3.0 percent.2
This war-time sextupling of investment in science and engineering produced new and unique
technologies (such as radar refinements, vhf communications, underwater sound ranging,
encrypted speech transmission, controlled nuclear reaction, heavy aircraft, and others). The
common political threat, and the high visibility of the technological responses, engendered
extensive public awareness and appreciation for scientific leadership.
The high valuation of technology and reverence for R&D persisted into the second half of the
20th century. During this period, industry (flush with success) increased its investments as
the federal government contributions began to ‘plateau.’ The latter have been nearly level for
the last 10 years. In recent time, while industry investment in R&D still shows some growth,
its rate has slowed and the emphasis is more on D than on R. The reason has been increasing
competition from abroad and pressure of impatient stockholders for greater profitability. This
has left the academic sector as the main performer of basic research. And, because the federal
government is the principal source of funds for academic research (about 60 percent), the
federal leveling plus the shifting of priorities to more applied work (to support mid-east issues
and homeland defense activities) has significantly diminished academic basic work. This
diminution in creation of knowledge, both by industry and by academia, has opened a major
vulnerability in U.S. competitiveness.

63
End of the Free Ride
The second half of the 20th century saw confluence of three technical advances that, together,
have markedly changed the post-war world:
(a new understanding of sampled-data theory — that permitted the representation of
intelligence in digital form,
(b) development of binary computation — building to some extent on non-linear pulse
circuit techniques devised for radar, and
(c invention of the transistor — that heralded the field of solid-state micro-electronics,
scalable to enormous complexities.
As a direct consequence: digital communications evolved, bringing signal quality totally inde-
pendent of transmission distance; digital computation emerged, enabling enormous accuracy
and speed in solution of complex calculations — along with intelligent software for information
management; and, explosive development of electronic integrated circuits put low-cost, high-
speed devices into the hands of engineers and scientists.
Coalescing of the techniques for packet communication, distributed computing and digital
storage, along with those for digital signal processing, has now produced high-speed data net-
working that has become ubiquitous in the developed world — the public unregulated version
of which we know as the Internet. Software capabilities of great variety enhance the utility of
this world-wide connectivity. These networking capabilities have created the flat world, and
have enabled aggregation of communication-based activities at geographical locations any-
where in the world where a knowledgeable work force can do the best job for the lowest cost.
This indeed amplifies our vulnerability.3
Communication-based outsourcing is not the only attraction. Great amounts of American man-
ufacturing (especially textiles) have long been offshored to capitalize on literate low-cost work
forces. This has been assisted by advances in transportation — making geography of little
consequence. This capability is already extended to agriculture (where in mid-January I enjoy
fresh blueberries from Chile). Other major U.S. manufacturing — such as autos and aircraft
— are becoming more visible targets for this process. An obvious moderating mechanism is
partnerships. However, a more fatalistic view is that outsourcing provides an advantage for a
while, but eventually the ‘knowledge work’ follows the production activity, and the outsource-
ee becomes a competitor of the outsourceer. Although this equalizing process need not be
zero-sum, it often acts to reduce the circumstances of one society while building the other.4
In any event, some displacement and dislocation in the domestic work force is likely to occur
over extended periods while an expected equalization materializes. And afterwards, there
remains the question of how to maintain frontrank position in the contest with competitive
peers, all of whom are vying for the same position.
The U.S. Posture

Recognizing, then, that most societies see science and engineering as key to technological
development, and hence to the enhancement of quality of life and international competitive-
ness, and that a great part of the world’s population (now growing towards six billion, with
nearly half in Asia) is making enormous investments towards reaching parity with U.S. capabili-
ties, what posture should the U.S. adopt? Knowledge creation and discovery must continue as
the foundation. Basic research — both unfettered inquiry driven and directed mission-oriented
— remains a mainstay in the production of new ideas. But more than knowledge creation,
U.S. Competitiveness and the Profession of Engineering
64
we must attend to creation of the creators — that is, the educational processes that cultivate
research capacity, technical leadership and astute management. Because most of the basic
research in the country is performed in academia, and because education is central to produc-
ing the creators, heightened responsibility for our society’s well- being falls heavily upon the
research universities. In meeting this academic responsibility three ingredients seem vital:
(i) expanded federal funding for university research,
(ii revision of curricula to emphasize research experience, idea generation, team
collaboration, and the stimulation of technical leadership, management talent, and
communication skills, and
(iii) vigorous participation and engagement of industry in federally cost-shared academic
research.
Gaining (i), expanded funding, requires concerted ‘missionary’ work on the part of academic
researchers — that is, actively contributing to public understanding of the societal benefits of
science and engineering. This understanding must reach a level where public demands for con-
crete action flood our congressional leaders. Academics jealously guard their time, and typically
prefer to remain above pedestrian public activities. But this involvement is an ‘overhead’ on a
successful research program, and faculty must awaken to this realization and to the necessary
commitment — in their own interest, if not in that of the country. By way of example, talks to
civic luncheons are sometimes a chore, but in one I found the chairman of an important appro-
priations committee. The time was well spent!
Additionally, most research universities enjoy close rapport with their respective congressional
delegations. But much of this access is spent in seeking favored funding for parochial, self-
serving projects. A broader view is needed to advocate for the total academic enterprise. In
some instances an effective model has been the joining of academic specialists across sev-
eral states to win commitments from multiple delegations. Such congressional cabals, when
formed, especially if they are bipartisan, can result in significant movement and action.
In some foreign countries, petitioning government leaders and decision-makers on behalf of
science seems easier, because of their technical backgrounds and their ingrained devotion to
technological development. The past president of China is an engineer; a former president and
a former premier of Taiwan are respectively engineer and scientist; and in South Korea, the
minister of information and telecommunications is a Ph.D. electrical engineer from Stanford,
and the minister of science is a Ph.D. electrical engineer from SUNY. In the U.S. it seems less
usual to find this level of technical expertise in top ranks of government, though relevant spe-
cialties are usually found in the agencies that disburse research funds. This, in itself, points up
the grave responsibility for staffing these positions with the most knowledgeable individuals
available. The program managers wield great power, and essentially control the objectives of
research in the nation — because academic researchers follow the money!5
Grant allocations must be made thoughtfully, with vision, and on a merit basis. The award pro-
cess must be efficient and transparent. But more than anything, there must be adequate funds
to award! Funds are now so pinched that it is not uncommon to encounter a ‘what’s the use?’
attitude towards the substantial labor needed to identify a significant research problem, form
a team, and prepare a proposal for the contest where only one out of a dozen or more may be
selected. In earlier times funding was not so constrained, and often returned remarkable ad-
vances (a prime example might be the search technology behind the fast-developing company
Google, initiated as part of an NSF-funded project on digital libraries at Stanford University).

65
In addressing (ii), revision of curricula, one meets the traditional academic inertia. Faculty mem-
bers are set in their ways and mostly enjoy teaching their individual specialties. But to produce
graduates who will maintain our competitive edge into the future, new educational emphasis
should be devoted to research exposure, knowledge creation, imaginative application, team
collaboration, ethical behavior, and the development of communication, managerial, and leader-
ship skills. Some engineering faculties complain that we already have too much to teach, and
that the business schools should address the people factors. But experience suggests that
talents for leadership and management might perhaps best be stimulated early — literally, in
the hands-on research activity. A leader inspires or initiates concerted group effort towards
a common goal. The mechanisms might be varied — fear, force, charisma, or confidence in
knowledge of the task. A manager organizes and administers application of resources (includ-
ing human capital) to an assigned objective. The underlying talents are not the same, but if
the combination can be instilled in a single individual the student product is admirable. (It might
be argued that Hitler and Stalin were leaders, but not desirable ones. Jefferson and Adams
might be considered good managers. But likely, Washington and Lincoln could be acceptable
examples of the combination of talents.) So, as others have noted, the emphasis may not be
on producing more science and engineering graduates, but on producing versatile graduates
of higher value, having unique skills and a penchant for sustaining their excellence through
career-long self-education. Such graduates might be less attracted to the necessary (but
sometimes pedestrian) role of manufacturer/implementer, but more to pioneering in innovation,
ideas, knowledge creation, and in determining how new knowledge can be applied.
It is perhaps interesting that the 2006 international conference Davos, held in Switzerland in
January, identified innovation as a key theme. And, it would seem unusual if a careful review
and coordination of curricula couldn’t wring out more opportunities to adapt to the changing
world — so as to produce a well-prepared graduate. In accomplishing this, the role of the
instructor is likely to change — from the ‘Herr Professor’ image, with selected students
worshipping at the feet, to one where the professor is more mentor and coach, and in some
instances, colleague. Some egos may be bruised in the process, but success will enhance
both student and instructor. In addressing item (iii), industry-university interaction, we rec-
ognize that knowledge application and the identification of ways that technology may serve
society are largely the domains of industry (and for its services, in a free society, industry and
its shareholders expect, and usually get, a fair return). If there are to be job opportunities and
careers for the highvalue graduates just postulated, the businesses with which they are associ-
ated must likewise be elite and smart. They must have access to new knowledge, or generate
it themselves. Over recent time industry has been sorely deficient in the latter. It is not likely
that large multinational companies will cease outsourcing and offshoring where they can get
engineering expertise for routine manufacturing for one-fifth the salary cost in the U.S. venue.
But the creation of new knowledge and product innovation might be sourced in the U.S. In this
activity, interaction between industry and university can produce significant novelty.
Industry-University Cooperation
Much of industry is not aware of the large pool of intellectual talent residing in research univer-
sities, and even when aware, how to tap into it. There are numerous obstacles and pitfalls, but
they can usually be negotiated. An inherent benefit to industry by participating in and support-
ing academic research is the leveraging of federal and state investment. This sharing takes the
sting out of research cost and risk. (Historically this participation has been very one-sided, with
federal sources supplying about 60 percent of academic research funds, and industry supply-
ing about 7 percent.) This cost-sharing is sometimes criticized as corporate welfare. I prefer to

66
think of it as societal welfare. The attractions for industry are several: new ideas and
the opportunity for exclusive licensing; first in line for recruiting (sometimes tailor-made)
skilled graduates; and, enhanced public image. Even the smallest successful start-up will be
compelled to find new ideas if it is to be sustained. This implies either research investment
on its own, or collaboration with a partner who possesses a research culture and a research
infrastructure. Large companies that have retreated from research over the recent years
face the same need.
On the academic faculty side, there is often an aversion to working with industry, having some-
one tell them what to do, and using them as a pair of hands. But as government shifts more
towards applied work, and funding for basic science and engineering becomes diminished, it is
gravely in the interest of faculty to cultivate support from industry and identify issues of mutual
interest that have high intellectual content. It is similarly in the interest of industry to expand
support of and participation in academic research that can address long-term, risky problems
in a cost-effective way (namely, as part of the educational process).
Numerous universities have experimented with industry cooperation, usually with mixed
results. Issues often center on research objectives, time scales, freedom-to-publish, and intel-
lectual property. These matters generally can be surmounted, especially where the company
has a designated ‘champion’ for the cooperation — one who can devote effort to faculty/stu-
dent interaction and can establish rapport with university administration. Intellectual property
agreements typically follow existing university policy, which is flexible for negotiation in terms
of ownership, exclusivity, and licensing. The desired outcome is that both parties benefit. One
university/ industry tech-transfer model that has some merit, and has had some success, works
with state seeding and municipal bonding for establishing infrastructure. The state seeding
is only advanced where there is clear opportunity for federal amplification, multiple industry
participation, new industry creation, and other potential contributions to the state’s economy.
Industry’s Side
The whole industrial enterprise is a major element that has been given short shrift here. It is
in this sphere that knowledge application is crafted. The process is generally guided by a close
apprehension of societal needs and desires, and technology is developed to match business
opportunities. Industry must see to the manufacturing and deployment of products and ser-
vices. Given existing trends, it seems unlikely that domestic industry will seek to compete in
large-scale labor-intensive manufacturing, where a skilled work force and routine engineering
expertise can be found in more cost-effective locations. Again, the attractive place to compete
is in unique high-value activities of knowledge creation, work force education, and in identifying
technology to match societal needs. While labor-intensive mass manufacturing is de-empha-
sized in this view, the creation of new technologies for manufacturing is not, nor is the engi-
neering management of contracted work. Implied throughout, too, is industry’s responsibility
for deployment, maintenance, and salvage, much of which is local. A predilection for this mode
may already be established, as we witness new products such as Razr, iPod, and xBox, and
new services based on search engines, voice-over-Internet, and broadband fiber to the home.
Offshore manufacturing poses some concerns in national defense. And, this matter reflects in
a different way the growing importance of partnerships — partnerships among nations, as well
as among multinational companies.
Innovation implies the application of new knowledge, which must come from some store.
A pervasive worry is that we are largely living on knowledge created over the past decade,
and that this condition can be sustained for while — perhaps another five years — before the
67
store is depleted, and the situation becomes critical. Performance then ceases to be competi-
tive. One possible marker of this trend is our output of technical articles, which has essentially
been flat since 1992, and has been overtaken and exceeded by that of Western Europe since
1996. An insidious aspect is that criticality might be far enough into the future so as not to
draw much attention. This may be yet one more point to socialize, and on which to seek public
and congressional understanding.
Because industry must have new knowledge to stay competitive — indeed to survive — the
hope is that basic research and innovation can be strengthened enough in the U.S. to con-
stantly stoke the knowledge store and maintain global leadership. Given the risk-averseness of
stockholders, and the necessity of stable, sustained support for long-term research to succeed,
it seems that government remains the key factor in nurturing leadership. Government can
encourage research investment among industry, but government investment is most certainly
central and necessary to academic research. This necessity is well apprehended in some gov-
ernments abroad, where basic, sustained, programmatic support is already being implemented
and handsomely financed.
Reprise
The thesis here is that knowledge creation is preeminent to leadership. Knowledge creation
derives from basic research. Over half of the U.S. basic research is performed in academia,
largely with government funding. This support has languished over recent years, as industry
has also pulled back from its investments. Leadership and technical capabilities are conse-
quently eroding. Educational efforts to attract young students into science and engineering
may be ineffectual, unless satisfying careers and stable contributory jobs can be demonstrated.
These typically are based upon exploitation of new knowledge. While it is believed that in-
dustry R&D will grow under mounting pressure of global competition, it seems absolutely key
that government substantially expand support of U.S. academic research. This can occur if the
various proposals mentioned earlier successfully coalesce and navigate the legislative process.
Constant public support and advocacy are critical to assure a positive outcome.
An abiding concern is that the societal contributions of research in physical science and engi-
neering have less public visibility, because they are more difficult to relate to daily lives of indi-
vidual citizens—despite the many technologies that affect people directly, such as MRI’s, CAT
scans, ultrasonic cardiography, laser surgery, biomaterials, electronic prostheses (pacemakers,
hearing aids, artificial larynges), and others.
A continuing question is how to enhance public awareness and gain congressional attention
for the basic physical science that helps protect our future? Survey data suggest that public
understanding of science arises primarily from television vehicles. This, in turn, suggests that
public broadcast might give special emphasis to the societal benefits of scientific innovation.
Additionally, congressional attention is clearly responsive to public opinion, and this, among
other means, can be offered in personal letters, calls, and visits. The coalitions, mentioned at
the outset, share related objectives and are working to keep science and engineering initia-
tives before government officials. But, it would seem that unifying and coordinating processes
should be urged to enhance their effectiveness and focus. Individuals in each technical sec-
tor can contribute influence. In whatever way efforts are consolidated, the resulting coalition
would find senior faculty of leading research universities and representatives of science-based
industry willing collaborators. In concert, a non-partisan strategy, and a plan of action, can
forcefully be laid before our leaders in Washington.

68
References
1. During recent times more than half (55 percent) of the Ph.D. candidates in engineering in
U.S. universities were from foreign countries. Up to 2001 more than half (56 percent) of the
foreign graduates remained to work in the U.S. This statistic may be changing as develop-
ing countries prosper and enhance both their employment opportunities and their technical
education. An MIT e-newsletter points out that of all bachelor’s degees in China, 40 percent
are in engineering. In the U.S. the number is 5 percent. As a perspective, we graduate more
M.B.A.s than bachelor’s in engineering.
2. During and after this era a number of immigrant scientists joined those of the U.S., further
strengthening the growth in R&D spending and in research capability. It is relevant to note
the Nobel prizes before and after WW II. (No prizes were awarded during 1940, ’41, or ’42.)
Prior to this interval, European countries garnered the most prizes, while afterwards the
U.S. was more successful.
3. The classic example of a communications-based activity is the massive outsourcing by
American businesses of customer-care call centers to Asia (especially India, where an able,
English-speaking work force can provide excellent service at low cost).
4. Just how convoluted this process may get is perhaps illustrated by one U.S. company
financing a multibillion-dollar microelectronics plant abroad, with the government of the host
country subsidizing the new business while receiving foreign-aid payments from the U.S.
At the same time, the U.S. company is supporting excellent science and engineering scholar-
ships for U.S. students, and advocating the production of more graduates to meet industry
shortages (which might be somewhat at odds with employment opportunities of recent
time). A central issue for young students, of course, is whether, upon graduation, our society
can provide them with satisfying jobs and gratifying, contributory careers.
5. Over the last few years ‘following the money’ has somewhat distorted the balance in re-
search, as basic science funding has diminished and emphasis has shifted to applied military
problems and to well-supported health care
Resource Materials Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board, “2003-04 Assess-
ment of the Army Research Laboratory, National Research Council, National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2005, 127 pages
Augustine, Norman, “Learning to Lose?” Washington Post, p. A29, 6 December 6, 2005
Baron, Paul, “The Beginnings of Packet Switching,” IEEE Communications Magazine, July
2002, pp. 42-48
Barboza, David, “Trade Surplus Tripled in ’05 China Says,” New York Times, 11 January 11,
2006, p.C1
Barrett, Craig, “A Corporate Science Project,” Business Week, December 19, 2005, p. 108
Bartiromo, Maria, “What They Said At Davos,” Business Week, p. 102, 6 February 6, 2006
Beech, Hannah, et al, “Nation,” Time, pp.26-30, 13 February 13, 2006
Bugliarello, George, “Globalization and Engineering,” The Bridge, National Academy of
Engineering, Washington, DC, Fall 2005, p. 3-4
Chen, Kathy and Dean, Jason, “Low Costs, Plentiful Talent Make China a Global Magnet for
R & D,” pp. A1, A12, Wall Street Journal, 13 March 13, 2006
69
Committee to Assess the Capacity of the U.S. Engineering Research Enterprise, “Engineering
Research and America’s Future,” National Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press,
Washington, DC, 2005, 50 pages
Cuello, Joel, “Offshoring and the Local Ethics of Engineering,” The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, v.
XCVII, no. 2, pp. 12-16, Spring 2006
Dawson, Jim, “Most Federal Science Money Flat or Falling as Bush Favors Medical and
Defense R &D in Fiscal 2002,” Physics Today, June 2001, pp. 24-29
Dawson, Jim, “Basic Science Funding Flat as War, Deficit and Hurricane Recovery Squeeze
Federal Budget,” Physics Today, January 2006, pp. 28-29
Dawson, Jim and Guinnessy, Paul, “Bush Budget Boosts Funding for Physical Sciences in FY
2007,” Physics Today, v. 59, no. 4, pp. 36-41, April 2006
Editor read me Summary, “Research Funding: Get Worried,” Technology Review, March 2005,
pp. 14-15
Editor, “Real Numbers,” Issues in Science and Technology, The National Academies and The
University of Texas at Dallas, Winter 2006, pp. 83-84
Flanagan, James, “A Model for Moving University Research to Industrial Application,” IEEE
Digital Signal Processing, v. 3, 1993, pp. 240-252
Friedman, Thomas, The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005
Friedman, Thomas, “Keeping Us in the Race,” New York Times, p. A 25, 14 October 14, 2005
Garten, Jefferey, “When Everything is Made in China,” Business Week, 17 June 17, 2002,
p. 20
Grant, Peter and Latour, Almar, “In Risky Move, a New AT&T Bets on Internet Technology,”
Wall Street Journal, v. CCXLVI, no. 110, pp. A1, A10, 21 November 21, 2005
Hamm, Steve, “A Red Flag in the Brain Game,” Business Week, pp. 32- 34, 1 May 1, 2006
Harsha, Peter, “Innovative, Competitiveness Plans Advance, but Hurdles Ahead,” Computing
Research News, v. 18, no. 3, May 2006, pp. 1, 6
Hira, Ron, “Impacts and Trends of Offshoring Engineering Tasks and Jobs,” The Bridge,
National Academy of Engineering, Fall 2005, pp. 22-27
Hirsh, Michael, “Dollars Without Borders,” New York Times Book Review, p. 13, 5 March 5,
2006
Holstein, William, “Novel Thinking As a Survival Tactic,” New York Times, 1 January 1, 2006,
p. 8BU
Jackson, Shirley, “The Nexus: Where Science Meets Society,” Science, v.310, 9 December
2005, pp. 1634-1639
Judson, Horace, “The Great Chinese Experiment,” Technology Review, December 2005/
January 2006, pp. 52-61
Lague, David, “China, a Trade Superstar,” New York Times, 17 January 17, 2006

70
Landler, Mark, “Chilly Streets and Hot Technology in Estonia,” New York Times, 13 December
13, 2005, p. C1
Markoff, John, “3 Technology Companies Join to Finance Research,” New York Times,
15 December 15, 2005, p. C5
Mervis, Jeffrey, “NIH Shrinks, NSF Crawls as Congress Finishes Spending Bills,” Science,
v. 311, 6 January 2006, pp. 28-29
Myre, Greg, “High-Tech Industry in Israel Goes from Bust to Boom,” New York Times,
26 December 26, 2005, p. C3
National Science Board 2004, “Science and Engineering Indicators 2004,” v. 1 NSB-04-1,
National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA National Science Board 2006, “Science and
Engineering Indicators 2006,” v. 1 NSB-06-1
Nussbaum, Bruce, “Davos Will Be Different,” Business Week, 23 January 23, 2006, p. 96
Overbye, Dennis, “Science Panel Says Physics in U.S. Faces Crisis,” New York Times, p. N26,
30 April 30, 2006
Reinhardt, Andy, “Getting Skittish About Skype,” Business Week, 28 November 28, 2005, p. 47
Romero, Simon, “5 Years and $15 Billion Later,” New York Times, 29 January 29, 2002, p. 1
Vest, Charles, “A Precarious Position at the Top,” The Boston Globe, Third Edition, p. K12, 18
December 18, 2005
Weisel, Davis, “Building a Better Engineer,” Wall Street Journal, 20 December 20, 2005, p. B1
Young, Shawn, “Vonnage to Unveil Private Funding of $250 Million,” Wall Street Journal,
17 December 17, 2005
Zakaria, Fareed, “How Long Will America Lead the World?” Newsweek, 12 June 2006
This article has been reprinted with permission from The Bent of Tau Beta Phi (Fall 2006).
Dr. James Flanagan, Mississippi Alpha ’48, is retired vice president for research at Rutgers
University and emeritus board of governors professor in electrical and computer engineering.
He received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering at Mississsippi State University
in 1948 and his M.S. and D.Sc. at MIT. Holder of 50 U.S. patents, he has received technical
recognition that includes the National Medal of Science (1996) and the IEEE medal of honor
(2005). A fellow of the IEEE, the Acoustical Society of America, and the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences, he has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering and the
National Academy of Sciences. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.

Are We Doing Enough for R&D Funding? 71
By George Mcclure
T here is general agreement that the secret to maintaining U.S. competitiveness is innovation.
Commodity manufacturing will move offshore but, the reasoning goes, if the United States
is first to market with new technology, it will maintain a leading position among its competi-
tors. The World Economic Forum publishes annually its Global Competitiveness Index, ranking
125 economies on nine pillars, one of which is innovation [www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/
gcp/Global%20Competitiveness%20Report/index.htm]. The United States was ranked number
one in 2005, but fell to number six in 2006, behind Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and
Singapore [www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Competitiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/].
Professor Michael Porter, who has written extensively on competitiveness, says the secret to
staying at the forefront is gains in productivity. After making great strides during the late 1990s
(average productivity gain of 2.5 percent) and from 2002 to 2004 (gains at a 3 percent rate), our
non-farm productivity improvement has slipped during the past 30 months to an annual rate of
1.5 percent. The indicated rate for the first quarter 2007 is 1.7 percent, but that may be soft
since it assumes full hours worked (there are indications to the contrary).
Fifty years of corporate R&D

When AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service, it was able to afford Bell Laboratories,
which not only supported innovation in switching systems but also performed a variety of
other long-term research with no immediate payoff. One of those other breakthroughs was
the transistor. In 1950, there were some 25,000 researchers at Bell Labs. But with the deregu-
lation of the telephone industry, Bell Labs shrank (to 1,000 researchers in 2003) and was spun
off to Lucent Technologies which is now part of the French company Alcatel.
Corporate R&D now is directed more toward development than research, because investment
is more defensible with a near-term payoff. Basic research, especially, is dependent on govern-
ment funding, both in the national laboratories and in grants for university research. Both the
National Science Foundation and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
fund research grants, but critics point to a tilt lately toward development — with an emphasis
on homeland security.
Government research funding falling

The proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2008 shows a reduction of 2.1 percent for basic and
applied research from the 2007 total, to $55.5 billion. The American Competitiveness Initiative
is supporting three agencies’ funding: the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (up 15.4
percent to $4.1 billion), the National Science Foundation (up 8.3 percent to $4.9 billion) and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (up 12.8 percent to $420 million). NASA R&D
will climb 6.7 percent, but all of that goes to the development of new human spacecraft to
replace the Space Shuttle, and to complete the International Space Station. NASA support for
aeronautics will fall again.

72
The R&D budgets for the National Institutes of Health will fall 1.2 percent; the Department of
Agriculture sustains a 10.8 percent cut in R&D.
The federal investment in basic and applied research will fall for the fourth year in a row in
real terms if the FY 2008 budget is enacted, according to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, which prepares detailed yearly budget analyses [www.aaas.org/spp/
rd/prev08p.htm].
Innovation is key
BusinessWeek recently tallied the top companies for innovation, based on a survey of some
2,500 executives [www.businessweek.com/go/innovativecompanies/]. The top five are Apple,
Google, Toyota Motor, General Electric and Microsoft. Many companies show R&D expendi-
tures in their financial reports, but for some large companies (such as GE, HP and Toyota) some
digging is required. Cisco Systems (25th in the 2007 rankings, up from 28 in 2006) spends over
$4 billion per year on R&D, but outsources basic research.
A new BusinessWeek service, the Company Insight Center on BusinessWeek.com, provided
most of the information contained in the table below [investing.businessweek.com/research/
company/overview/overview.asp].
The table shows the R&D invested as a percentage of sales for some representative technol-
ogy companies. The percentages alone can be misleading. Electronic Arts has experienced
declining sales of electronic games, while it steps up product development to recover.
Apple, number one for innovation in 2007, spent 5.93 percent of sales on R&D in 2004,
but because sales have risen by 2.5 times, and R&D rose by only 45 percent, its R&D fell
to 3.69 percent of sales in 2006. The major chipmakers invest heavily in R&D — mostly for
manufacturing technology. Intel has a policy of using university researchers for basic science;
it is developing a line of chips for health care and has announced a $2.5 billion fab facility in
China.
As with other conglomerates, IBM, with its emphasis on services as well as physical products
and software, may be misleading with its 6.75 percent of sales devoted to R&D. For 2006,
R&D breakouts are available for only two automakers: Honda and Daimler-Chrysler. Honda is
developing a diesel engine (in both 4- and 6- cylinder sizes) for its larger vehicles, and has a
light jet air taxi.
Siemens’ competitor in the European power equipment industry, ABB, does not report its R&D
expenses separately, but has encountered stormy weather financially. Siemens acquired the
assets of Westinghouse power generation some time back.
Two makers of flat panel displays, AU Optronics and LG.Philips, have been hit hard by the
falling prices of displays, but AU Optronics (in Taiwan) stayed in the black, while LG.Philips,
a joint venture between LG of Korea and Philips of the Netherlands, did not.

73
R&D Expenditures as Percentage of Sales
Year ending 12/31/06
Electronic Arts 31.16 %
Advanced Micro Devices 20.80 %
Texas Instruments 15.40 %
Intel 15.22 %
Microsoft 14.87 %
Cisco Systems 13.06 %
Alcatel-Lucent 11.66 %
Yahoo 10.71%
Motorola 9.58 %
Nokia 9.48 %
Google 8.77 %
IBM 6.75 %
Siemens 5.75 %
Boeing 5.29 %
Honda 4.98 %
Apple 3.69 %
Daimler-Chrysler 3.52 %
Raytheon 2.29 %
AU Optronics Corp. 1.57 %
LG.Philips LCD 0.76 %
Source: BusinessWeek.com
The budget for defense R&D climbs to record levels, thanks in part to supplemental budget
requests, accounted for by weapons systems developments (up 5.5 percent to $68.1 billion).
Basic and applied research for defense science and technology (plus medical research) are cut
by 20.1 percent.
It has been pointed out that the smart weapons we have today were developed starting over
25 years ago. But we are not doing much on the basic and applied research front to lay the
groundwork for later new weapon developments that will be needed in the pipeline for the
future.
Are We Doing Enough for R&D Funding?

74
A more extensive listing of R&D expenditures for 2005 is found at www.technologyreview.
com/articlefiles/2005_rd_scorecard.pdf to provide comparisons with the 2006 data.
Dual-use technology is helpful in some defense and non-defense applications. Counter-suits at
the World Trade Organization filed by Airbus and Boeing each charged the other with benefit-
ing from government support (military contracts for Boeing and launch aid subsidies for new
aircraft for Airbus) that aided their commercial positions.
George McClure is Today’s Engineer’s Technology Policy Editor
Are We Doing Enough for R&D Funding?

IEEE-USA’s 2007 Innovation Agenda 75
By Russ Lefevre
I n 2006, IEEE-USA Government Relations volunteers and staff focused on implementation by

the U.S. Congress the provisions of the National Academy of Engineering report Rising Above
the Gathering Storm that matched our legislative agenda. Although our efforts, along with
those of other concerned organizations, were partially successful, the constrained schedule of
the Congress in an election year yielded disappointing results. In 2007, our efforts will attempt
to build on our partial success to help convince the Congress pass legislation that will be helpful
to U.S. IEEE members.
IEEE-USA’s strategy will take account of the political make up of the new Congress. In the Sen-
ate, it is expected that the bipartisan innovation and competitiveness bills introduced in 2006
will be reintroduced. The pertinent bills had more than 60 co-sponsors. In late September, a
bill was introduced by the leaders of Republican and Democratic parties that incorporated Gath-
ering Storm provisions from three previously introduced bills. All three of the bills had more
than 60 co-sponsors, indicating that the bipartisan bill has a good chance of passing the Senate.
In the House, the situation is more complicated. Although the House under Republican leader-
ship generally supported the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), there were
very few Authorization Bills introduced to implement the ACI. Bills were reported by the Ap-
propriations Committees that met the President’s budget recommendations for the ACI but the
bills were not voted on during the lame duck session. Instead, Congress passed a Continuing
Resolution to keep the Government running until 15 February 2007. The Democratic minority
introduced several bills implementing many of the provisions of the Senate bills but they were
not acted on.
In 2006, House Democrats adopted an ‘Innovation Agenda: A Commitment to Competitiveness
to Keep America #1.” The provisions of the agenda were:
• C
reate an educated, skilled workforce in the vital areas of science, math, engineering
and information technology
• Invest in a sustained federal research and development initiative that promotes
public-private partnerships
• Guarantee affordable access to broadband technology for all Americans
• A
chieve energy independence in 10 years by developing emerging technologies for
clean and sustainable alternatives that will strengthen national security and protect the
environment
• P
rovide small businesses with the tools to encourage entrepreneurial innovation and job
creation
To implement the agenda, the House democrats called for a number of legislation initiatives.
Among them were bills to:
• P
lace a highly qualified teacher in every math and science K-12 classroom by offering
upfront tuition assistance to talented undergraduates
• E
ncourage professional engineers and scientists to join the ranks of the nation’s
teachers

76
• C
reate regional Centers of Excellence for basic research to develop cutting-edge tech-
nological innovations and new industries
• Double federal funding to promote broadband for all Americans
• Protect the intellectual property of American innovators worldwide
Since the election the Democratic Innovation Agenda has been incorporated into their overall
legislative agenda. The elements of the Innovation Agenda can be found in ‘A New Direction
for America The Book” on the House Democratic Leader’s Web site [www.house.gov/pelosi].
This agenda is largely based on the provisions of Gathering Storm, with modifications designed
to appeal to the Democratic constituency. Most of the details of the proposed legislation have
been supported by IEEE-USA in the past and are generally positive for our members.
IEEE-USA Technology Policy committees worked throughout 2006 on behalf of legislation to
implement the Gathering Storm recommendations. During 2007, we plan to continue this ef-
fort with indications that there may be a better environment for passage of enabling legislation.
The President and the incoming Speaker of the House have put out press releases that indicate
support for a national innovation initiative and many of the proposed provisions are supported
by both sides.
Check out IEEE-USA’s innovation and competitiveness resource page at: www.ieeeusa.org/
policy/issues/innovation/
Russ Lefevre is a Life Fellow of the IEEE and 2007 IEEE-USA President-Elect. Comments may
be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
IEEE-USA’s 2007 Innovation Agenda

IEEE-USA Launches an Innovation Institute 77
By Sharon Richardson
Innovation — the act or process of inventing or introducing something new; something
newly invented; or a new way of doing things.
Innovation is the hot buzzword these days. But, is it easy to innovate? Actually, it seems like
it — until your boss asks you to develop a new process for the way you do business; invent a
new product that no one has every heard of before; or create a new service that no other com-
pany has ever provided for its customers.
To help IEEE members learn to innovate, IEEE-USA is launching a new Innovation Institute
[www.innovation-institute.org] geared at training current and future business, academic and
government employees responsible for the innovation of new products and services. Former
IEEE-USA President Ralph Wyndrum, CEO and visionary behind the new Innovation Institute,
says this concept came about from survey results that the IEEE conducted on its U.S. mem-
bers. “The survey concluded that members were not satisfied with the benefits that they were
receiving for their dues. Also, members in mid-career believe that they are being ignored by
corporations who are not interested in helping them get the education they need to enhance
their careers. They felt that their employers don’t want them taking classes on company time,
nor do they want to pay for them to take classes after hours, or fund their membership in orga-
nizations like the IEEE,” Wyndrum noted.
Further, according to the survey, our U.S. IEEE members believe that K-12 students are not pre-
pared to enter engineering schools; and that companies are downplaying innovation and basic
research and development. Wyndrum said that overall, the survey results showed evidence
that U.S. IEEE members have major concerns about innovation and R&D. So, he stressed at
an IEEE-USA Board of Directors (BOD) meeting the need to “preserve and keep the innovation
process alive. We need an Institute.” IEEE-USA’s BOD unanimously agreed — and the IEEE-
USA Innovation Institute was born.
The Innovation Institute’s mission is to offer programs designed to advance the preparation
of leaders responsible for the innovation of new products and services, by sharing the experi-
ences of successful innovators in a coordinated program of interaction, mentoring and network-
ing. Further, the Innovation Institute aims to enhance the ability of technical professionals to
respond to opportunities to integrate new and existing technologies with potential for new,
customer-driven markets; develop the ability of technologically-oriented managers to refine
operations in research and development, or production environments; enhance invention and
innovation; provide opportunities for educators to both develop and share innovative approach-
es to achieving the goals of the Institute; and let members access the wealth of experience in
successful innovations available through other IEEE member innovators.
The plans are for the Innovation Institute to hold forums — one and a half day workshops to be
held regionally, collaborating with the IEEE’s U.S. Sections or Chapters. The innovation forums
will involve small groups of 50 to 100 participants. Institute faculty members — IEEE members
who have innovated successfully and who are willing to share their experiences — will play
key roles in the forums. “The forums will be a place for people who want to be innovative, and

78
also for those who have innovated before and need to learn more about innovation,” said Tesa
Leon, IEEE-USA’s program manager for the new Innovation Institute.
“U.S. IEEE Senior Members will make up the Institute faculty. And those who don’t necessar-
ily want to teach in the Institute, but are willing to share their personal experiences, will present
case studies for forum discussions,” Leon said.
“And what better place to go for experts than the IEEE, with its more than 220,000 U.S.
members, who have been acknowledged as experts in their field,” Wyndrum added.
Forum participants will learn from their experiences, mistakes and best practices, and they will
be taught how to create innovative workplace environments. Faculty will discuss innovative
design, research, development, delivery, marketing and sales of new products, as well as legal
and public policy. And Leon hopes that as the Innovation Institute develops, IEEE members
and forum participants will let her know what would be helpful to them to learn about innova-
tion.
The Innovation Institute plans to develop an Innovative Network, consisting of a subscriber-
based virtual community that provides online access to innovation practices, resources and
mentors. Materials that come out of forum discussions will help develop the Innovative Net-
work, which will contain other sources of information for Innovation Institute members. Other
services in development include an Innovation Clearinghouse, a library of innovation resources,
case studies, forum videos, articles and other such resources delivered through the Network;
and an annual Innovation Conference that will focus on exceptional innovation examples and
national innovation policy, as well as new faculty preparation and orientation.
“We are hoping that forum and network participants will eventually become members of our
Innovation Institute academia who will teach the innovation process to others. These programs
are already being taught on an academic level in business schools like Harvard and Wharton.
Very few are in engineering schools. So the broader hope is that these programs will become
a part of U.S. engineering schools,” Leon said. Further, Leon expressed that “the word is go-
ing out to industry and government, non-profits, for profits and academia about the program —
because innovation occurs only if you have everyone working together to keep innovating.”
On 22 May 2007, IEEE-USA’s Innovation Institute, Employment and Career Services
Committee, and Entrepreneurial Activities Committee co-sponsored its first webinar, A Primer
on Corporate Innovation: Fundamental Skills for Stimulating Values-Driven Innovation, which
offered techniques for relating to the role of innovation in your work; recognizing your own in-
novation styles; discovering the values that motivate your creativity; evoking the most unique
contributions from others; and building a culture where the best ideas rise to the top. Webinar
participants heard from world-renowned innovation author and motivational speaker, William
C. Miller. Miller, one of Leadership Excellence magazines top 30 leadership consultants world-
wide, addressed what innovation is; the role that innovation plays in your work; the relationship
among learning, innovation and values; strategies of innovative thinking; and eight key success
factors for corporate culture for innovation.
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), Chair of the House Science and Technology Committee, stressed
the importance of the United States becoming more proficient in innovation: “Unless we main-
tain our edge in innovation through a strong science and technology enterprise, the best jobs
may soon be found overseas, instead of in our communities.”

79
To help the United States maintain its competitive innovative edge, IEEE-USA’s Innovative In-
stitute needs U.S. IEEE members to help it succeed. IEEE-USA is calling for IEEE members in
industry, government and academia to become part of the new IEEE-USA Innovative Institute.
For more information, visit www.innovation-institute.org, or contact Tesa Leon at t.leon@ieee.
org, or Ralph Wyndrum at r.wyndrum@ieee.org.
Sharon Richardson is staff assistant for communications at IEEE-USA, and editorial assistant for
IEEE-USA Today’s Engineer Digest. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.
IEEE-USA Launches an Innovation Institute

1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1202 • Washington, D.C. 20036
+1 202 785 0017 • www.ieeeusa.org

The Best of Today - S Engineer On Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Best of Today - S Engineer On Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

the best of

ieee usa today’s engineer

By Georgia C. Stelluto, Editor

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Best Practices in Innovation: Learning from Others’ Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Top 10 Innovation Tools for New Millennium Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Engineers on Innovation: A View from the Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Not Invented Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Keep Their Clothes on … and More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Do Engineers Improve Lives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Unleash Your Inner Innovator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Ten Thoughts on Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Is Innovation the Answer? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Backscatter: The Hat Trick — Having it Both Ways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Report Sets Agenda for Fostering Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Administration, Congress Get Behind Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

How the Government Refocused on Innovation and Competitiveness (Part II) . . . . . . . . . 53

Engineer, Promote Thyself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

U.S. Competitiveness and the Profession of Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Are we Doing Enough for R&D Funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

IEEE-USA’s 2007 Innovation Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

IEEE-USA Launches an Innovation Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

Framing the Issues

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

Raw Ideas (Unwritten) 3,000

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

What Are the Sources of Innovation?

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

The Process for Innovation

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

The pre-project stage

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

What Are the Organizational Requirements?

Resources also include:

Organizational infrastructure includes:

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

Beware of the infrastructure

Integration of products, markets, and technologies

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

The product, market, technology matrix

Who Are the Innovators?

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

Becoming the Innovator

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

Are you ready?

Innovation: What Engineers Need to Know

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

NeoCycle — Exercises your brain; best ridden in a blue sky environment

HamCorder — Stores just the meat of your best ideas.

And the number-one innovation tool for new millennium engineers:

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

TE: How are these methods changing and at what rate?

TE: We touched on simulation. How much of an impact is simulation having in terms of

Roundtable Discussion — Engineers On Innovation: A View From The Roundtable

The Best of Today’s Today’s Engineer: On Innovation

Roundtable Discussion — Engineers On Innovation: A View From The Roundtable

Sean Lockhead is a product support group manager at Kaman Industrial Technologies.