Innovation in engineering 3

[jmw]

A concensus has been emerging that the best way to protect jobs is to encourage innovation.

Innovation can only take place in an environment that encourages it.

In the US, Intelectual property rights belong to the employer, come what may. In the UK the 1977 Patents act confers inalienable right on the employee as an inventor, guaratneeing him a fair reward. This applies to all employees though case history has established that for R&D engineers, or others for whom this is a specific task, the reward is minimal.

Not all innovations are patentable. Many an employee has good ideas about how to improve quality and efficiency and these repreent improved competitivenes and improved marketability.

Some companies operate incentive or suggestions schemes. Some operate none.

I cite the US and UK approaches to employees inventions a one instance where i feel that innovation is treated in quite different ways and suspect that it may have a direct impact on the willingness of employees to surrender their ideas or to just keep quite.

What, on the whole, is the effectivenes of suggestions schemes? Can they be effective?

I suspect that in some companies, it is a bit like their customer service ethic; there is a declaration in the CEOs message to the shareholders and that's it.

ANy experiences anyone would like to share?


JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[davefitz]

Its not enough to simply invent a better device or process. There is no value to society unless the patented idea is produced and sold so as to demonstrate its usefullness.

Most products or items are produced and sold thru corporations. To convince upper management to accept the risk of a new product , the inventor has to go beyond just inventing a product or proposing an idea. One must also demonstrate, using the economic terms understood by managemnet, what are the risks, costs ,and benefits ,and how it fits into the company's "vision".

 

[2dye4]

davefitz
Your point further illustrates what jmw is saying.
Why should an employee go to all that trouble to convince
a disinterested management of an new concept if he
recieves nothing for it.
This idea goes much further than inventions. I know many
people who have good ideas about the company process but
also know if they speak up they get nothing but an at a boy
if it works and if it doesn't their career is damaged.
It is far easier to stay out of sight in todays work
enviroment.

 

[Comcokid]

jmw, davefitz, 2dye4 - you have all hit on what I think is the key point which jmw stated the most directly.

If companies are series about innovation, they need to ask the following questions, and take serious action on the resulting answers.
1) What are we doing to encourage innovation?
2) What are we doing to discourage innovation?

I have worked at a number of companies, and surprisingly, none of them were really serious about innovation. They may mouth the word, but the environment created by the management reflected a totally different reality. Take a look at the following comparison list:
Positives Negatives
Recognition --- Politics and Indifference
Cheerleading / coaching --- Micromanagement
Resources --- Workload and Bureaucracy
Rewards --- Theft and Retribution

Most companies I have worked at have proven to be highly dysfunctional internally. Management never saw the need to create, setup, and maintain an environment in which people could do their best, in fact it seems management never gave a thought about the company atmosphere or environment at all and how that might affect the employees. Some of the companies I have worked for are within the Fortune 500 and well known. Other companies were small and with few employees. But all suffered equally from the same dysfunctional problems falling on the right side of the above list.

The negatives directly affect how much a person can innovate in an environment. For more on this, research "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs".

I have designed a lot of products, and have a number of patents with my name. But I have come to the conclusion that companies really are not interested in innovation. Innovation implies investment and risk, and companies are very risk and investment adverse.

I could also jokingly state that: People who design, develop, and innovate are masochists.

 

[GregLocock]

"Why should an employee go to all that trouble to convince
a disinterested management of an new concept if he
recieves nothing for it."

Nothing? Well, I guess if he received nothing then it would be hard to justify.

Why do I invent things, or push new concepts? I don't get any monetary award for doing so. They can't promote me, and they can't pay me any more. My last big push (worked out in a two hour phone call with my partner in crime) - saves the company about 40 dollars on every car, increased the volume available for the fuel tank, improved the handling, and made the car quieter. It was a big risk , technically it broke conventional wisdom, and getting it through the project team was pretty tough, but we stuck to our guns, had all the answers, and made them do it.

So here's why:

a) reputation - when the hard problems come up, they ask me to get involved - when a new system is being considered my opinion is asked for, and listened to.

b) excitement - driving the first prototype with one of my systems in is always a huge buzz (when it works)

c) satisfaction. As the lead designer said on another project (in a broad scots accent) "This wuns gorra lot of your bluhd in it, Graig"

Seriously, what is a job worth that can deal out rewards like that? Those rewards do not pay the mortgage, but at least I drive to work looking forward to the day ahead.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[flamby]

I agree with Greg that a fact known that you innovated is a reward in itself.

Nevertheless, there are situations where even recognition is hard to come by. Consider the infamous story about Newton and Liebnitz as an example. The politics is an integral part of human affairs, including workplace. You do innovation. They don’t promote. It’s okay so far, but if the next thing is a dumber guy overtaking you, the feeling is hard to resist that this is what innovation gets you. Many people just do not put forward the innovation, because they fear that this might come true on them.

Particularly in larger organizations, innovations, politics, communication skills, people skills, propaganda –all are required for you to make your efforts noticed. Any week link may rob you of your purpose. Those who are smart, manage to contribute and get their share of credit while others want to stay behind others’ shoulder for fear of failure.

The policy any company should have is to remove the fear off the minds by removing the communication barriers. Carrots are less likely to work if the management does not look receptive.

Only if managers could speak less and listen more...

 

[jmw]

Greg,
you are 100% right in all you say.
Except: why shouldn't you have all this and a financial reward? $40 a car, say $1 or 2 a car would be nice.

Now the caveat is that if you are employed as design or development engineers and part of your job description includes this type of innovation, then you and the company have fulfilled the obligations within your employment contract and job description.

None the less, it would be a nice thing for management, who presumably will see their bonuses enhanced by this, look after you with a suitable and more tangible reward than an "attaboy".

In the UK, and some elsewheres, there is a growing recognition that employees are also "stakeholders" and thus there is a move toward a "stakeholder" economy. In some cases this means share schemes.

What we should recognise is that the old days of 16hr days slaving for the mill owner and receiving a much curtailed life expectancy, have gone. The industrial landscape is as much a forum for social change as any other.

Quite apart from all this is the fact that any incentive schemes, suggestion schemes etc can have as a target the increased profitability of the company and that everyone has a share in that increased profitability.

When the company sets out its 5 year plan and calls for 10% growth per year you know that the onus is on you to help them achieve it but you also know that you will work harder and for less money.

Greg, it is the attitude that you express that characterises the engineering workforce. It is highly laudable and we are all victims of it. Engineering is becoming less of a profession and more of a vocation.

In another thread the illustartion provided by the Boeing strikes was a revelation. It shows just how under-regarded engineers are and how much they are taken for granted and exploited.

The bottom line to all this is that if you contribute to the profitability of the company in todays society you ought to be able to benefit according to your merits.

Capitalism is a great system, but i am reminded of Winston Churchill when he said "There is only one thing worse than democracy..... everything else." Capitalism may be good but it isn't perfect.




JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.