Factors lnd uencing lnnovafion
The matter of stimulation, assessment and management of technological innovation continues ta occupy a prominent position in the thinking of those concerned with how science and technology contribute to attaining national and humanistic goals. Last year the National Science Foundation began preliminary planning on two new programs directed toward increasing our understanding of this matter and improving our effectiveness in handling it. The Experimental Research and Development Incentives Program is designed to help us learn how to create an environment that will enhance invention and innovation, and to find ways to increase the efficiency and speed of conversion of results of research and development into improved products, processes and services. The National Research and Development Assessment Program is addressed to questions of how to assess the probable costjbenefit ratios for new technological innovations, and how best to manage the overall research and development effort through national policy. Funds have been requested to support both programs a t least through fiscal 1974, and work in both areas is proceeding. Some interesting insight into the dynamics of innovation, and into some of the fundamental issues in this extremely complex and diverse process is provided in a study of factors that led to eight recent innovations of high social or economic import. The study, "Science, Technology and Innovation," made for NSF by a team from Battelle Laboratories in an attempt to understand better how innovation proceeds, identifies and analyzes events that provided a major and essential impetus in each of the innovations. The investigators also describe characteristics common to the several innovations or to the research that led to them. The innovations examined are: the heart pacemaker, hybrid grains and the green revolution, electrophotography, input-output economic analysis, organophosphorus insecticides, oral contraceptives, magnetic ferrites and the video tape recorder. The study concentrates on the history of the innovative period, documenting each case by reviewing recorded literature and, where possible, by interviewing important participants in the innovative developments. The historical record is subjected to three analyses, a) an investigation of how certain factors, such as technical feasibility, funding or recognition of need, affected the decisive events; h) a search of the historical record for characteristics common to the innovations: and c) classification in various ways of signifirant events from all innovations. The must sirnificant resulrs from these analyses are: individual identified as the "technical entrepreneur,, or "product champion" is a dominating force in promoting innovation. This individual frequently pursues inno-
.
Ieditorially
speaking
vation in the face of difficulties and discouragement. He appears to he considerably more important than the also influential "technological gatekeeper9'-an individual who identifies scientific and technical information of relevance to the interests and activities of the researchers. The opportunity to make or achieve technological improvement (related in part to the working climate in the laboratory) is a major force in motivating the successive events leading to an innovation. Recognition of a need to be fulfilled by the innovation is a strong motivating force. Benefits from the confluence of different fields of technology is evident in all the innovations, and can be promoted through deliberate interdisciplinary efforts. 0 The time lag between first conception of an innovative idea and its first realization varies widely among the cases studied, but on the average, is notgetting shorter. 0 Basic research is important in all phases of the innovative process, but probably is more vital in the earlier than in the later history of the innovation. The investigators provide some interesting suggestions and conclusions. Among these are the suggestion that those who would promote innovation might try first to find or to develop technical entrepreneurs; and the not unexpected conclusion that innovation simply cannot he completely programmed or controlled. Despite this flavor of unhopefulness toward stimulating or managing innovation, the analysis reveals two ways that managers may be able to help it along. The first is by encouraging-through funding or otherwise-the activities that good research or development teams are excited about. The second is by promoting interdisciplinary research and development, largely through the team approach. While none of these results and conclusions is surprising, there are a t least three factors here that have special meaning for academic chemists. The fmt is the extent to which chemistry played a vital role in the innovations analyzed, even though only one of them was strongly chemistrycentered. Results indicated that six of the eight innovations would not have been possible without a substantial input from current chemical research. The second factor is that the substance of innovation would appear to be knowledge, motivation, communication and the ability and opportunity to use developments from several disciplines. Surely this is as much the substance of the education of innovators as it is the essence of the innovation process itself. The third factor is the primary importance of the individual in getting the job done. The esscnrial lesson here well might he that the "system" is programmed to mainrain thestorus quo; only individuals of unusual courage, dedication and ability can propel it to progress. WTL
Volume 50, Number 6, June 1973 / 377
