: Most inventions originate from novel and simple ideas. These ideas which are raw to begin-with are nurtured and nourished by R&D organization before they are tried on a large scale. However, all such ideas may not lead to commercially successful products. Hence there is a need

to correctly identify the novelty of an idea before it is commercialized. The paper analyzes some problems associated with the identification of novelty and suggests important criteria that help in transforming novelty to

commercial success.

Keywords : Novelty identification

Ghosh, R N

English

eprints@NML

ISBN : 81 -87053-57-9Synergy of R&D and Marketing© NML Jamshedpur , India (2003 ), 79-84Identification of Novelty in R&DR. N. GHOSHNational Metallurgical Laboratory, Jamshedpur - 831007Abstract : Most inventions originate from novel and simple ideas. Theseideas which are raw to begin-with are nurtured and nourished by R&Dorganization before they are tried on a large scale. However, all such ideasmay not lead to commercially successful products. Hence there is a needto correctly identify the novelty of an idea before it is commercialized. Thepaper analyzes some problems associated with the identification of noveltyand suggests important criteria that help in transforming novelty tocommercial success.Keywords : Novelty identification, R&D Management, Idea evaluation,Logic of creativity.INTRODUCTIONcreation of something that did not exist before is the prime goalof any research establishment. This could be a simple gadget ,a complex machine, a new material or product of commercialvalue. The motivation for invention comes from prospects ofmonetary gains. This also serves social needs and makes lifeeasier and comfortable. Most inventions originate from noveland simple ideas. As and when such new ideas evolve patentsare filed. These are legal document to stop unauthorised use ofsuch ideas for commercial exploitation. Success in R & D isoften judged by number of inventions. Every year a large num-ber of patents are filed all over the world. Majority of patentsoriginates from an organised effort on the part of a few estab-lishment or organisation. They have their own ways and meansof inviting report by an expert committee are selected for fund-ing. Socio-economic factors are the prime consideration for such79R. N. GHOSHselection. A few amongst these may result in patents and stillfewer may be commercially successful.There are many instance where bold decisions to promote newdesign and material have led to engineering disaster. Like wisethere are cases when the then acknowledged experts failed tojudge potential of new ideas which later proved to be highlysuccessful. The problem arises from the fact that the novelty ofan idea is judged by either our current knowledge on the sub-ject or proven track record of the potential inventor. Althoughthe limitation of the existing system is well known it is extremelydifficult to find an alternative. Possibly a close examination ofthe past success and failure of the evaluation system in identi-fying novel/creative ideas may give us a clue.Ideas are like diamonds- in its raw state it is not at all beautiful.It is the skill of the cutter that reveals the beauty of diamond.Likewise we need someone or a group which could assess thepotential of an idea, decide if this is worth pursuing and takenecessary steps to make the idea work. Apart from generatingnew ideas- which can be done by organising discussions -Lopromote creative thinking it is necessary to set up an evalua-tion system to identify ideas that would work. There is a gen-eral belief that novel ideas are those which would draw atten-tion of everyone. In reality it is rarely so. Efforts are required tomake them work.There are four important criteria based on which ideas areselected. It needs to be seen if this is going to bring anybenefit to the organisation. Research establishment can nolonger continue to function on public fund. There will be incresingdemand to make them self-sufficient. There are many instancesto show how R & D can turn inventions into industry. There-fore this should be first criterion for selection of an idea. Truethat ideas, which are likely to bring high benefit, suffer fromhigh risk. This should not be a deterrent for pursuing a brightidea. The idea may be valuable but it may not be beneficial.The value resides in idea, whereas those, affected by theidea enjoy benefits. One needs to examine on what does thisdepend. What is the durability of benefit? How are the ben-efits derived? If benefits are attractive we should ascertainwhat efforts will be required to make it work. Does this vio-80IDENTIFICATION OF NOVELTY IN R&Dlate any regulation? Does this need new technology to bedeveloped?Next come resources. Do we have them? Often resources re-quired to implement a new idea is grossly underestimated. Weneed to consider if there are any disruption cost-if attention fromongoing projects is being diverted. In case resources are notavailable decision is simple. Do not pursue it further.We also need to see if the idea compatible with the policy, strat-egy and objective of the organisation. Do we have the. peoplewho could undertake the tasks? Are they motivated? The diffi-culty is that only traditional ideas seem fit for an organisation. Itis difficult to get work. If so then see how much effort is re-quired to make this fit. Try to imagine what is best environment/set-up, which could make this work. Examine how the existingsystem differs from the ideal one.Great inventions are outcome of novel ideas given shape byscientists and technologists . Most of us are familiar with thesuccess stories of great scientists . We read them for inspira-tion and try to follow them to give shape to our imagination.Rarely do we realise they may have miserably failed in manyventures. Thomas Alva Edison, one of the greatest innovatorsof many scientific equipment made a telephone that never worked.This had a cranking system that was too noisy. Voice transmit-ted was masked by noise. This shows that ail ideas comingfrom people who are known for their creative skill are not worthconsidering. All novel ideas may not result in success.A new idea must compete with other possible ideas. Thishas to prove its worth. This must go through a preliminaryevaluation.This is a part of the creative process that helps shapeideas, makes them better and presentable for further evaluation.All ideas go through an evaluation process. This is a part ofassessment, judgement and decision on the part of the organisation.No disaster is attributable to creative thinking. Whenever di-saster occur it is attributed to poor assessment of creative pos-sibilities. However there could be exceptions when one deliber-ately decides to support creative ideas with high potential andhigh risk. Nevertheless those which seek to enter this category81R. N. GHOSHmust be differently evaluated. A new idea may take only a fewseconds to evolve. Yet the evaluation procedure can be long.This is justified because it this procedure that covers the risk.The result of hasty decision to use novel alloys to cut down theweight of commercial aircraft flown by jet engine is well known.Comet aircraft introduced in early fifties met several fatal acci-dents, which were later found to be due metal fatigue. A newhigh strength aluminium alloy was smaller than the rivet headsused to join the sheets to build the fuselage . This did not deteraircraft industries from investing more resources to innovatenew materials, new design procedures and new methods forstress analysis, new evaluation techniques and test proceduresto turn this into one of the safest and efficient mode of publictransport.Often we adopt a point system to evaluate and identify novelideas suitable for the organisation. This procedure does not clearlyreflect strength and weakness of the idea. Nor can we ascer-tain its usefulness. An alternate approach could be to groupthem according to their merits so that it is easy to arrive at adecision. Possibly these could be grouped as Directly usable.Good but not for us, Good but not now, needs more work etc.Some may be put as Powerful but not usable e.g. those notmeeting environmental regulations, those that amount tocannibalisation of exiting product: ideas in this category shouldbe preserved and reviewed occasionally. There may be a fewthat could be interesting but unusual. They may have has stimulating& creative value even if never used. Some may be of weak value:workable but has low benefit. Responsibility is on the part ofthe group or the person who has proposed the idea to show ithas high value. Some idea may attract attention because ofhigh novelty. But full evaluation may show it is weak. We mustbe careful from unworkable ideas: those having fundamentalimpossibility. They must be rejected. Creative indulgence shouldnot seek to keep such ideas alive.Frank Whittle patented in 1930 a new idea of a jet engine. Thiswas to be built for high speed and high altitude flight wherenormal piston engine will not work because of cold and thin air.The idea was indeed attractive. However it could not be builtbecause material which would withstand the temperature were82IDENTIFICATION OF NOVELTY IN R&Dnot available. An expert committee was set up to suggest nec-essary steps to taken to develop such an alloy. This committeelooked at all the possibilities and concluded that with the thenavailable techniques it is impossible to make an alloy which cangive the thrust per unit weight expected out of it so that theengine could fly. Thus the committee felt that the idea is notworth pursuing . However within a year of its report jet enginedid fly in 1939. The material used was nickel base alloy madeby Mond Nickel Company.Directly usable ideas also need to be tested . This is necessaryto build basis for support. Test results may be more motivatingthan an idea on its way. In 1856 Henry Bessesmer made publicannouncement of a new process which reduced eventually theprice of steel to one fifth of its former cost . This also made pos-sible to produce steel in large quantities . His proposal involvedblowing of air through molten iron to burn away impurities - anidea that must have appeared fantastic and dangerous to thethen iron manufacturers. His initial attempts to produce steelresulted in brittle products full of blowholes. A suggestion fromhis Robert Mushet to add an iron - maganese alloy calledSpiegeleisen before it was cast into ingots did the trick. Thisquietened the wild steel and reduced blowholes and preventedbrittleness . So much so that this continued to be the main steelmaking process for over a century. Later the problem associ-ated with nitrogen pickup in steel was overcome by blowing pureoxygen in place of air . But this could be possible only with theavailability of tonnage oxygen at reasonable cost . Often idea todevelop new process and innovation comes from local constraint.Successful operation of Bessemer process required presenceof 1.8% phosphorus in iron to obtain necessary increase in tem-perature . However by blowing oxygen iron having lower phos-phorus can be converted to steel . No wonder this innovationcame from Linz and Donaitz in Austria where the available oreshave lower phosphorous.There is a general feeling that creativity is a natural talent. Somepeople have it others do not have. There is nothing you can doabout it except to employ people who have this natural talent.Remove inhibition and fear so that they can mess around andsomething useful will happen. There are historical anecdotes83R. N.GHOSHto support such beliefs.The discovery of stainless steel is well known. In 1913 HarryBrearly of Sheffield was experimenting with alloy steel for gunbarrels. Amongst the samples he put aside as being unsuitablewas one having 14% Cr. Few months later he saw in the pile ofscrap most of the test pieces had rusted except the chromiumsteel. This was still bright. This led to the development of stain-less steel as typified by our present day cutlery.Do we need to wait for such accidents to happen for innova-tion? Can we not promote occurrence of such incidents? Thecurrent thinking is that proper training does improve creativeskill of people. In most of the successful organisations suchtraining has become a common practice. This helps a group toevolve a novel approach to solve current problem facing theirorganisation by collective thinking.This does not mean that everyonegoing through this exercise will become a Sachin Tendulkar.However for training to succeed we need willing students, skilledteachers and proper method. Just messing around and encouragingpeople to have crazy idea may not be good enough. We needto under stand the logic of creativity. There are specialists, whooffer formal training in lateral thinking, which is a specific anddeliberate approach to serious creativity. There are programsfor training trainers to be able to pass on the skills of lateralthinking to their students. In order to promote generation of novelideas and their successful implementation there is a need ofproper training. The right expert should offer this to the rightpeople. In a meeting to promote creative thinking to solve aspecific problem, provocation often help generate innovative solution.Suppose we were considering river pollution. Someone putsforth - the factory should be down stream of itself." This is aprovocative statement, which would seem utterly impossible.From this comes the concept of input and output of the factory.It is normal for it to draw water from upstream and release ef-fluent into downstream. This suggests if a factory is built on ariver the input must be downstream of the output so that thefactory is the first to taste its own pollution and therefore bemore concerned to minimise effluent pollution. In hindsight theidea is perfectly logical. Today we do hear about new technolo-gies being implemented in industries to achieve zero emission.84

Identification of Novelty in R&D

http://eprints.nmlindia.org/2557/1/79-84.PDF

Identification of Novelty in R&D

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eprints@NML