Are Engineers Really That Good For Innovation?
I have been pondering on this since I had some comments on my The Faces Of Open Innovation post where I expressed some concern that most of the profiles working with open innovation had an engineering background.
In the blog post, I mentioned that engineers do add value to innovation, but we need to get a broader focus in the overall innovation process by giving room to other functions and competences as well. Innovation should be about much more than just technology and products for which many engineers have a tendency to over-focus on.
Two comments in particular caught my interest. The first one went like this:
“Why so surprised at the preponderance of engineers in the open innovation community? Good engineers are, by necessity, innovative. This is not so obvious with other professions. Engineers are prone to share, to seek out other engineers when they face a mental block.”
Wow! Are good engineers by necessity innovative? My response is whether you really can be innovative when the next sentence mentions this is not so obvious with other professions. This is borderline arrogance and to some extent hubris.
In today’s innovation environment, I believe you need a T-shape in which you bring strong depth to the table. Engineers often do this, but to me this is worthless unless you also have an understanding and empathy for how other business functions and competences work and add value to the products and services to be created.
You could also raise the question whether the limited thinking displayed in the comment is not exactly the reason that have caused so many products to be brought to market that were filled with all sorts of doodads and capabilities that the engineers thought were just fantastic, but that real consumers had no use for. I think it is fair to say that how this guy defines innovation is skewed toward the ability to solve technical challenges, which is only part of innovation.
The second comment went like this: “The natural place for open innovation to start is in the technical function, in my view because it can be neatly defined and encapsulated without excessive risk.”
What is actually being said here is that open innovation should be defined from an engineer’s perspective. Hmm, I would argue that we should define and embrace innovation from the customer’s and/or end-user’s perspective as they will end up paying for what we do. It is important we understand this and it is my experience that engineers as a profession often do not get this. Other professions and business functions better understand this making them just as important and valuable – if not more – in the innovation process.
Engineers, of course most of you are good for innovation. You should be proud of what you bring to the table, but you also need to wake up. The way we innovate is changing fast and engineers need to adapt to this just as everyone else. This is especially true as we open up our innovation processes to external partners rather than doing almost everything internally.
Perhaps you should try one simple approach next time you face a mental block; seek out non-engineers. This might broaden your horizon which I am sure will benefit all of us.
I look forward to your comments on this.
Couldn't agree more – I believe that engineering (logical and systems) thinking is a wonderful benefit to any project developing an innovative approach.
Decades of working with engineers from numerous disciplines in mining, forestry and technology has also heightened my awareness of the need to balance the systems thinking with different perspectives. Providing the ying and yang of a solution, if you will.
If we believe that innovation and/or creative solutions come from a series of divergent and convergent thinking, then it makes sense that you need both the organic and fluid thinkers along with the logical systems thinkers to perform both functions.
The key is probably to learn to respect both ends of the spectrum within the confines of looking for a new solution… historically it seems that working with people who are different from us is very difficult, so we cope by dismissing their ideas, rather than incorporating them.
Next time you hear yourself asking "Why?", try a simple exercise and ask "Why Not?" instead – you'll be surprised at the difference this makes… It is my mantra, and the basis of my consulting career.. this simple change has consistently helped me to think innovatively about many different issues.
Good luck.
Is this kind of question ethical?
I don't know a a benefit in stereotyping people or professions. Especially in business. Maybe someone could share one?
The question is how 'out of the box' is 'out of the box'
My personal opinion is that 'well rounded' individuals can innovate lot better than engineers with blinkers. Nobel Prize, for instance, has been moving from 'fundamental research' to 'research that changes lives'. It should not be forgotten that Jack Kilby of Texas Instruments was an employee of Texas Instruments and he was awarded Nobel Prize few years back. More often, engineers have their own 'method's to solve problems that they face – whether it is in a boiler or nuclear plant or electrical transmission or software bug. In my opinion, innovation is something that changes the 'landscape' or provides a new 'perspective'. Currently, 'innovation' is facing an issue because it is not 'single person' owned like may be in case of Edison or others who hold lot of 'patents'. Innovation is more often 'extension' of somebody's work in probably different domain.
Well, many engineers are T-shaped, nevertheless your post is giving one strong reason for open innovation campaigns in engineering organizations.
1) Pardon my bad english
2) I'm not an engineer, i'm a "consulente di direzione" (Hey CEO..what your problem? tell me and i'll try to help you!)
3) I don't love engineers..and this cause that I HAVE TO love engineers.
What I mean?
If you need effectiveness and to be efficient, you need a specialist.
If you need to solve a problem, you need a systemic view and a big attitude to integrate different knowledge, people engagement, and so on..
So, what about engineers?
They (all of us!) needs a big attitude in co-thinking, co-operation, co-what.you.want..
Today, enterprise, don't have to produce things..they need to produce "Project, Value and Sense Making"..and Open Minded engineers (*.ers) have a lot to say..
In my next life..I'll be an engineer: able to paint Bach whit a Fender Stratocaster flying whit my Guzzi under the see looking for beauty!
What?..no, it's not LSD..it's just "Emotions4Business" and philosophy (love4knowledge).
Innovation..and money is a natural consequence!
Aloha!
The post (and the referenced comment) highlights a common misconception. This engineer, as well as most engineering-types, think that inventiveness–which clearly is part of a good engineer's toolbox–necessarily equates with innovation. In fact, invention often has very little to do with innovation. Innovation is at its core "profitable invention."
As someone with years of experience working with R&D professionals as their patent lawyer, I can attest that my engineering colleagues were often more interested in the invention and patenting process than whether customers would buy the product. This sets up the implied conflict of the post.
I agree with you Stefan, but as long as the R&D function drives the product development process at a company, cool inventions that won't sell will be the work product of that organization.
I concur that cross functional representation is key to the 'germination' of innovation. Subject to the engineering background, I think in general that engineers take a holistic view.
Where I think engineers contribute well is to the area of business models and system thinking. From my 'good old days' of electronics engineering I learnt about business as a 'system' (not just technology) and a host of techniques to model systems e.g. S-Parameters. As an Officer in the Navy, we had to know how systems impacted operations be it weapons, navigation, communications etc. From my earlier days in HP we embraced many techniques to find ways to continuously improve our global business from Hoshins, Process of Management, Ten Step Planning, Rummler-Brache e.g. 'Managing the Whitespace'. Subject to the engineer in question, we are taught from an early stage to think in a cross functional way and to fully understand the inputs and outputs.
In terms of the open innovation angle that you posted. Engineers tend to work well when there is a stated hypothesis and or problem to solve. This is probably why there is significant activity from the engineering community. If I was structuring an open innovation program I would not have the engineering team lead the 'hypothesis' definitions. I would assign leadership to functions that are more market facing with hands on experience/contact. Within any open innovation program I would expect engineers to contribute even if it is not their domain as they just love to solve problems and or create new things.
Hence, engineers provide a great base to add value around business models and problem solving but diversity obtained from other styles of thinking/expertise is needed to achieve the real breakthroughs.
I believe I am the original author of the first comment you cited. I think you need to re-read the comment, paying attention to the qualifiers. "Good" engineers are of necessity innovative. Otherwise, once the original concept is implemented, you no longer have a need for an engineer. Next, "This is not so obvious with other professions"- which does not in any way imply that it does not EXIST in other professions, just that the VALUE of innovation may not be so obvious as it is in engineering. I also suspect that one would tend to shy away from a "creative" accountant, if one wanted to stay out of jail.
With regards to considering "feature creep" "innovative", I would argue just the opposite. "Feature creep" is a symptom of a lack of confidence in your solution. "Hmm. Maybe this isn't innovative enough to catch the eye of the market…Let's add a couple of features (because we can) to see if we can't expand consumer appeal". So we wind up with telephones that can do everything but place a telephone call, and music players that do double duty as video cameras. This is not, in my mind, adding value to a solution, but detracting from the initial intent of the solution.
I've sat through meetings with prospective clients who have new tech products that they want help in launching in which it becomes alarmingly clear that they developed this new whiz-bang thing just because they could do so from an engineering standpoint. They are sure there's a market for it because, well, gosh, isn't the technology neat? When you start asking questions about exactly what market research they've done, they get that deer in the headlights look. This is what happens when engineers are the sole driver of innovation. So while some engineers may be insulted by Stefan's viewpoint, I think he is bringing something important to the discussion with this one.
You are right, engineers are great innovators and good for innovation processes.
The question is not 'are engineers good for innovation' but:
'How can we improve the innovation process?'
With 20 years development behind me, I conclude that engineers tend to be more innovative because they know how things work and what can be achieved, as well as being willing to push the parameters of their work and knowledge.
Other 'support' staff often lack detailed knowledge and are unwilling to learn the details, often waiting for a finished idea or product to develop, or just having an idea but not willing to learn the details of development.
The and side is that engineers design, they often lack an understanding of manufacturing and selling, so you can have really good ideas in a lab that can't get much further.
Bottom line, is to use the multi-disciplinary approach, much talked about but rarely used by companies, where de-skilling of tasks remains the norm.
regards
I am a trained and practicing Engineer but I am also a trained and practicing Industrial Designer. I like to think of myself as a middle brainer with some right and some left brained abilities.
Also I have worked in the Toy and Juvenile Products Industries for over 30 years with roles in new product design and development.
Early in my career as an Industrial Designer I was very arrogant about my bias that only Designers are capable of being innovative. This bias has worn thin over the years. Now I believe anyone can be brought into the innovative process with proper guidance.
Engineers, Designers and Marketing professionals all have their rightful place at the table but end users can also be powerful contributors.
Many times new technologies are not the best basis for useful products. I would also add that the constant need for newness can also be a poor footing for useful products.
The best new products are ones that fill a need for the end user not something that is only based on a new technology or the need for newness.
The term engineer should be distinguished from technologist. The true engineering approach can be applied to business and social science to drive innovation. The engineering training calls for a rigorous discipline to define the problem, the constraint, to drill down the underlining mechanism and hence to engineer innovative and executable solution, which is not limited to technological solution. In real life, many professional engineers are confined to focus on technology and giving others an arrogant impression. I suggest those from other fields to open more about the engineering approach to drive innovation and technologists to open about applying engineering approach outside of the technology rim.
Although schooled as an engineer, I always worked in customer-facing market development and strategy roles. For specific innovation activities, I always scouted out the people that had that ability to really think away from the norm….most of them were schooled engineers that had a good solid fundamental knowledge of architecture, materials, and applications but they had that special something else that you can not define. Something that allowed them to go bold, go different, go unique. I think the mix of those two things were what set them apart and allowed them to develop some amazing ideas. But, adding a non-engineer could give another dimension to the mix….it's just finding the right people. I'll try it next time and report back!
'I are an en-gn-eer' we used to say at our university. Not an intelligent sounding retort for those who immerse themselves in the schooling of complex concepts and equations for typically 5+ years of their lives.
For a right-brained / left-handed engineer as myself, who has assembled and influenced teams, I have experienced both the restrictive mindset an engineer may hold tight to as well as immense intuitive creativity unleashed when the soil is well-prepared for innovation. When business drivers require a design, I have found it best to then back away and allow creativity to flourish, provided the necessary constraints of design are well defined. A plant grows best when it's soil is well prepared and well tended.
I completely agree with the thought, though I am an engineer myself. What I feel this generation is lacking is the compassion to think beyond technology. When we look at evolution, the greatest innovations have been brought about by people who were not that educated (I mean, in terms of the so called degrees). Over the time as technology grew more and more engineers entered the space and innovations happened but only technological. Somehow now when I look back, I feel that innovation has become restricted to only the IT space which somehow needs to change. So its very important for engineers to respect other disciplines, because though they might not help with technology, they can bring alot of creativity and compassion to the innovation space.
It is not an "either … or…" situation. If a ballance between engineering and economics type of thinking is achievied there will be real synergy and good results. For sure it is a rare thing to have such ballance within one person so engineers and economists have to stop arguing who is more important.
Focus, discipline and methods tried and true are no longer enough and engineers tend to go this established route. But it’s hard to let go, especially when the stakes are so high. For that we need imagination, energy and verve. For that we need more playful people to truely make innovation great”
Some years back I read a wonderful article by Patrick Lambe about the concerns about the engineer dominated mindset within innovation:
"When it comes to innovation, let’s consider the analogy of two games.
Golf is an engineer’s game. It’s a problem-solving game. You have a problem, the hole, and in theory, getting your ball into the hole is entirely calculable: if you can measure the wind speed, the atmospherics, the inclines and friction of the surface, and if you can control the weight, angle and velocity of the swing, you’ll solve your problem.
Like golf, engineering is above all a problem-solving game. It only works if your innovation environment is one of specifiable problems that you can pin down, locate, and work hard at in a consistent, methodical fashion.
Tennis, by contrast, is a responsive, adaptive, dynamic game. Here, it doesn’t matter particularly where the ball goes so long as it stays within the court. The point here is not so much the precision with which the ball is directed, but the addition you make to the direction, angle, spin of the ball as it comes at you. Each player must both respond to the novelties added by the other player, and add something special to the ball when they send it back across the net. The fun of the game is in the ability to respond, adapt, and add something new. It’s a much more playful game than golf.
Tennis is a far better analogy than golf for our current innovation environment, because it’s all about responding to uncertainty. When the problems won’t stay still, and when we can’t see or define them precisely, the golfing approach won’t work. .
The tennis player worries more about catching what’s coming at us now, and sending it back with a little (innovated) spice added"
This might add some additional thoughts to engineers and innovation.
Right – Innovation is a process of delivering ever-increasing value to one's customer and it must be viewed as a business process. It does not belong to any one function.
The question is not 'are engineers good for innovation' but:
'How can we improve the innovatoon process?'
With 20 years development behind me, I conclude that engineers tend to be more innovative because they know how things work and what can be achieved, as well as being willing to push the parameters of their work and knowledge.
Other 'support' staff octen lack detailed knowledge and are unwilling to learn the details, often waiting for a finished idea or product to develop, or just having an idea but not willing to learn the details of development.
The and side is that engineers design, they often lack an understanding of manufacturing and selling, so you can have really good ideas in a lab that can't get much further.
Bottom line, is to use the multi-disciplinary approach, much talked about but rarely uzed by companies, where de-skilling of tasks remains the norm.
regards;
Last Tuesday, I listened to the CEO of Mint (recently acquired by Intuit) and he talked about the basic model for VCs to value start-ups here in the Valley. Every engineer adds 500K$ to the valuation and every business or business development person *reduces* the valuation with 250K$.
I guess that provides one perspective of the value of engineers versus other roles in innovation.
Innovation is not a process, but a state of mind. Minds can be open or closed, regardless of occupation or training.
It is true that one should be wary of creative accountants of "financial engineers". Yet, putting stereotypes on people based on their occupation or training is not useful and possibly unethical.
Remember that not so long ago no one could imagine a black person being the President of the US? A conventional "wisdom" of the time was that the value of colored person was a fraction of the "regular" citizen.
So instead of claiming that "engineers are like this" and "marketers are like that", ask, why am I framing the question in this manner? Does it say something about myself?
Interesting post. Even if being an engineer myself( no one is perfect
) I have to agree that too often engineer think they are good innovators which is even more often wrong.
First of all it is key to differentiate invention from innovation.
To make things short invention is the part of pruducing something, innovation is the part intented at selling this marvellous thing. It is always mentionned invention in patents instead of innovation.
So no doubt that engineers are in most of the cases on the invention side while marketing engineering, supply chain managemnt are more on the "selling part". THinking that engineers are good at innovation is just a non snes if they do not accept that innovation will come from a fruitfull team work between all the stakeholders of the value chain in the company.
Regarding open innovation it is just a non open mindset to think that open innovation could come mainly from engineers. You cannot claim openness and at the same time not accepting to include people from very different horizons in your thinking circle.
It is not because engineers are able to manipulate the complexe toolbox they have in their hands that no one else could have a view and advices on the solution.
SO at the end innovation comes from the fact that evryone brings its contribution to the full edifice, engineers are just a piece of this puzzle.
Please see: http://iotd.patrickandrews.com/2008/07/02/enginee…
Have you noticed how people who have innovation blogs always stereotype people?
Good stuff. I agree, and it could be any profession(al) who filters by their education/training. There's another sub-thread here: systems. Gears(engineers) follow systems and know systems, and the software gear world follows them into patterns, with reference to "A Pattern Language". Yet Alexander's work was specifically decrying such logical system thinking. Eg "A City is Not a Tree" meant beyond a logical tree of choices. A city is more a patina growing into an ecosystem, and the ecosystem is often chaotic to the gear/planner. It's patterns are beyond the common logic-patterns now half-abandoned in the software world.
Logically right patterns fail in design complexity. Alexanderian and other natural patterns can be observed. Some gears grok the larger patterns, intuitively or with experience, others walk in the same fields and only see the logic-trees.
Me? I'd keep MBA's later in the development path, along with most gears. I'd often prefer to fumble with agile development aka an entrepreneurial development pattern, with short fast dev cycles showing results to users. Almost accidentally designing to the larger system with the logic system.