Trying to be innovative is like trying to be taller

lee, you are spot on innovation is in the genes, its inherited, for years I never understood why I could take on projects that others shied away from, if I didn't have the tools to execute the job, I would make them, on completion of one project I was nominated for an award in the systems category, and won, I was surprised as this was a national award and I was up against multy national companies. The product I designed was expanded upon and refined by my son and is now in use around the world. To find out how I was able to solve problems in my field of work, I became interested in how the brain functions, my brain is wired to function analytically not neurotypically, I can visualize what I need to do to achieve my goal, I am not an engineer but have a good working knowledge of mechanical concepts and most of what I design works first time. I have read that people with this ability generally gravitate to engineering , scientific or mathematics as professions. For further explanation of this gift look up Asperger's Syndrome by Tony Attwood.

How about innovation is a skill that needs to be practiced. Use it, or lose it. The more technologies, material properties, hints and kinks that you know, the more background you have to call upon to develop a solution.

For most problems I see there's about as many possible solutions as there are technologies that might be used to create a solution. (If you have more tools than a hammer, then nails are less likely to be your best solution.)

Mr. Teschler,
I think it is a very interesting theme of analysis if it is possible or not to teach and to learn to be innovative. Perhaps we may find a lot of arguments for demonstrating that it is possible but perhaps lots of people could also be skeptic. Why not encouraging serious research about this topic? From my point of view it is not a question of to believe or not to believe, it is a question of how the innovation process could be made more efficient and not subject of only trial and error or finding the people with the right gens for hiring them. Of course, as it occurs with any human ability, there are persons with better possibilities for being innovative. It is the same with mathematics or music or swimming: not everyone that takes math courses becomes an Einstein and not everybody that takes music courses becomes Beethoven… Therefore not everyone that takes innovation courses becomes an Edison. The real question is if it is possible to improve the capabilities of persons dedicated to develop products to become more innovative. My personal belief is yes, but I do not want to let it only be a question of believing or not believing. Perhaps could Machine Design.com start a task force on this theme with following topics?
1. Is it worth to teach innovation at Universities for Engineering Design students?
2. How could the effectivity of teaching and or learning be measured?
3.How could enterprises become more effective in innovation?
4.Is it the only way having genetic specialists looking for human resources for improving the rate of innovation success in enterprises or…?
5.Are there success stories available?

Dear Mr Teschler,
My experience on the Indian Railways supports some of what you say. Innovators are not the run of the mill employee. They are scarce and they seem to think differently from the others.
The normal employee is more performance oriented, more likely to meet targets and exceed them. He is also more systematic in his workstyle and probably in his thinking. He tends to do what he is told and not try out his own ideas.
The innovator usually does not perform as well in routine jobs. He is often asystematic in his work and record keeping. And quite often he is trying out his own ideas in the workplace, though not always with useful result. Hovever once in a while he comes up with an idea that really works and can be extended across the organization.
A production or maintenance organisation with too many innovators can be a disaster. Hovever they are a scarce commodity and such a sitution is unlikely. Innovators really come into their own in research or design organisations. But even here they cannot be trusted to apply their minds on the work in hand and may come up with workable ideas in a totally different field.
I am not sure about whether this difference is genetic or from nurture. Innovators do have a different mindset which cannot be just acquired.
Yours truly
Debashis Ray

The idea that innovation and problem solving skill is a "mother nature" skill that one either has oer doesn't have is absolutely not true! The work of Altshuller and his Russian colleages in the development of "TRIZ" (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) has clearly shown that innovation is an algorithm for breakthrough that can be taught in the same way that general quadratic equations have replaced trial and error math problem solving. It's important to make a distinction between creativity (just coming up with "ideas") and making these ideas commercially viable which is innovation. Assuming that our objective is to solve problems that make money as opposed to just creating ideas without use, then this is a skill that can be taught to everyone. TRIZ and some of its derivatives are now in use by many Fortune 500 companies and is part of training offered by engineering societies such as AIChE and ASME. Innovation and breakthrough problem solving are sciences that can be taught, just like chemistry, physics, and math.