A Thought on the Subject. . .

When a Portland, Oregon patent attorney was asked this question some years ago at a conference, he paused, hitched up his pants, and replied, “Steal it? Young man, the chances are you can’t even give it away.”

Paranoia or Legitimate Concern?. . .

This question comes close to heading our FAQ—frequently asked questions—list. The response by this Portland patent attorney doesn’t answer the inventor’s question, but it does make a major point, that point being that the security of his or her intellectual property rights is not the inventor’s major concern. The major issue facing every inventor as he or she begins the innovation process is the commercial potential of the new brainchild. We don’t have a precise measure of the risk profile faced by independent inventors at the idea stage, but it is a very good bet that it is less than one in 100 ideas will ever see the light of day in the marketplace. How much less isn’t very important. In fact it isn’t important at all—odds like this are sufficient to render security a minor concern relative to feasibility.

Does this mean that inventors should not be concerned about security? Of course not! But it does mean that inventors should get their concerns straight. Worry first about commercial potential and second about protecting your ideas.

However, do not become obsessed with the possibility that someone will try to steal your idea. The Portland patent attorney was right. Companies don’t steal high risk inventions. On this basis alone, the chances that someone will steal your idea are pretty low. Of course, the odds go up somewhat as commercial feasibility approaches viability. Even then, the majority of firms are basically honest in their dealings with inventors. For example, when Schering Plough licensed a 50-year old invention, an in-grown toenail strip with long expired patent protection, from a 76-year old Arizona inventor (and WIN client), the firm paid the inventor a royalty. It didn’t have to, as the idea was long in the public domain. It is sometimes a very small world; several years later I discovered my nephew had played a role in that decision. When I asked him about the royalty on a public domain invention, he simply responded, “We did it because it was right, after all, it was his idea.” The moral of the story here is that not all the world is out to steal your idea—the majority of firms will treat you fairly and honestly.

The Net Result of Inventor Paranoia. . .

Excessive concern about security—usually expressed in terms of confidentiality—has two very natural consequences:

1. Insistence on confidentiality will greatly diminish your chances for licensing your invention. Some years ago I surveyed major corporations about their attitudes toward unsolicited new product ideas; 87 of the 105 firms (that’s 82.5%) responding indicated they would not review outside new product ideas or inventions in confidence. In other words, they would not sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA). This means that if you insist on a NDA, you have just lost 82.5% of your potential market. In other words, all other things being equal, your concern has reduced your prospects (which were not all that great to start with), by 82.5%.
2. Inventors who major in security typically do not do their homework and typically they fail as a result. The innovation process is probably the worst place in the world to try to go it alone. This is why most corporations conduct research and use outside consultants. They have learned, many of them the hard way, not to trust or rely only on their own judgments in new product decision-making. This is true of successful entrepreneurs as well. Research indicates that successful entrepreneurs tend to ask a lot of questions and do a lot of research and planning. In other words, while they recognize that faith in, and commitment to, their project is essential, it isn’t sufficient. They will typically start out by asking, “Is this really a good idea?” No, they don’t rely on family and friends, they seek the counsel of knowledgeable others and they do a lot of research to determine the scope and nature of the market for their product.

The bottom line here is that exaggerated concern—paranoia—is a very good way to insure failure.

But, This Isn’t Fair. . .

OK, let’s assume that it isn’t, but there isn’t much you can do about it. Corporations are not going to accommodate you just because you are an independent inventor. Those who do not sign NDAs are not going to do so because of your concerns. When you approach them with an idea or invention, keep in mind the fact that they are the customer and you are trying to sell them something. They are going to demand their rights.

If you think corporations are unreasonable, consider the marketplace. It has no heart, no mind, and no soul. It does not think and it has no conscience. It functions on the basis of collective satisfaction. It is made up of individuals who make unilateral independent purchasing decisions based on their individual perceived needs and level of previous satisfaction. The customer is a king and/or queen of the worst kind. He or she could care less about the welfare of those who serve them. There are no excuses. Those who fail to satisfy their needs and wants fail, be they large or small. Am I exaggerating? Perhaps, but when was the last time you considered the welfare of a retailer or manufacturer in making a purchase? This is why corporations screen their new product ideas and subject them to increasing levels of scrutiny, evaluation, and research as they advance through the innovation process.

Be it fair or not, you insist on confidentiality and ignore research at your own peril. But perhaps it isn’t as unfair as it might seem. . . .

The Curious Phenomenon of Parallel Invention and Innovation. . .

At times inventors seem to have very long memories; or perhaps they are history buffs. Whichever is the case, the occasional, but well publicized, case in which an inventor wins a judgment against a corporation lingers long in inventor circles. Still circulating are stories about a misappropriated tool, radiator overflow device, and an electronic ignition, all of which are 15-20 years old.

Perhaps more significant in fueling inventor paranoia are claims by friends, others, and perhaps self, that “They stole my idea.” The allegation is far more likely than not to be false, but the experience of coming up with an idea, only to see it in the marketplace, is quite real and not uncommon.

Human psychology plays a role in this phenomenon as we all tend to notice things that we have become sensitized to. For example, when my daughter recently bought a new purple VW Bug, I immediately began to see more Bugs on the road. So far I haven’t seen any purple ones, but my overall Bug count has more than doubled. The same is true of inventing: invent something and you will be far more likely to spot a like or similar product.

However, this phenomenon cannot be explained away by psychology. We are still left with the curious phenomenon of parallel invention and innovation. I do not have an acceptable explanation for it, but I have observed it numerous times. For example, people have been tying things on car antennas for about as long as there have been antennas on cars. When I was a kid, raccoon tails were making a comeback from a previous fad. Since then, I have seen a variety of other antenna decorations. Technology in the form of Styrofoam gave rise to brightly colored little antenna balls. This fad went the way of all fads. In due season, it too faded on the close-out tables of the nations’ retailers. I wasn’t surprised to see it resurface about two years ago from an inventor who claimed the idea was new and there was no competition for it. Within a fairly short period of time it surfaced in idea form a couple of times again. When it surfaced one more time in market ready form, I referred the manufacturer on to a major retailer. Recently I have counted six or so manufacturers now making like products. Demand hasn’t assumed fad like proportions, but there are a variety of alternative products nibbling away on this niche market. We did not tell anybody about the antenna ball idea, nor did the retailer. It is our standard practice not to disclose ideas and inventions submitted to us to anyone, including retailers. Retailers and other third parties do not see anything WIN reviews until the client is prepared to present his or her product to them.

The curious part of this phenomenon is that we frequently see ideas and inventions in clusters. We know we are not talking about our client’s ideas, and it is a pretty good bet that they aren’t either. Perhaps the best explanation for this phenomenon is the old adage, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” Actually, this folksy expression makes a lot of sense. As society and its needs advance, it is not unreasonable to expect that more than one individual might sense emerging needs. Perhaps the classic example of this is the invention of the telephone, when perhaps as many as five people were working on the same basic idea simultaneously.

Now, what does this have to do with firms not wanting to sign NDAs? Everything. Many of them have learned from repeated experience that the majority of ideas submitted to them are ideas they have either seen before or have generated internally. This is more likely to be the case if you have done your homework and are targeting firms which manufacture or market products similar to or related to yours. These are the people who are most likely to be able to do a good job with your invention. Unfortunately, they are also the folks most likely to have seen it before.

Part of the problem here is that the vast majority of inventors embark on the innovation process with the firm belief that there is no competition for their brainchild (at least this is what over 90 percent of our inventor clients tell us). A couple of years ago we asked a group of buyers at the world’s largest retailer to rate a group of ideas and inventions, most of which had passed our assessment process. With a few exceptions, these projects represented the cream of the crop—about the top ten percent of those submitted to us.

We had done our best to screen out those that were inferior to products already on the market. We don’t major in uniqueness, as this can be as much of a curse as it is a blessing. However, many of the reinventions and carbon copies we saw did not make it into the group of inventions we sent to those buyers. Keep in mind that these buyers are among the most knowledgeable people in the world when it comes to product availability within their specific product areas.

Of a sample of 81 reviews, the buyers rated only 15 (or 18.5 percent) as “absolutely unique with no similar products on the market.” It is interesting to note here that this group represented about 10 percent of the inventions submitted to us, and the buyers rated less than 2 percent as novel in contrast to the over 90 percent novelty rating of the inventors themselves. This means that about 98 percent of the allegations of theft by inventors are based on imperfect knowledge of the marketplace rather than the possibility that someone has misappropriated their intellectual property.

While I can accept necessity as at least a partial explanation, I’m hard pressed to extend this explanation to the resurgence of old fads like the antenna ball. I’m left with a lot of unexplained examples of parallel invention and innovation, against which there is no defense. Whatever the explanation, it does not lie in the claim, “Somebody stole my idea.”

So, How Can I Make Sure You Won’t Steal My Idea?. . .

Just as it is unlikely somebody stole that idea, it isn’t likely that somebody is likely to steal this idea. So, how can I make sure you won’t steal my idea? In spite of everything I have said thus far, this is still a fair question and wholesale broadcasting of your idea is not good policy. It is a fair question, but it is not a good question because it is not the right question.

No, this isn’t double talk. It isn’t the right question because it does not go far enough. Unhappily, there seem to be a fair number of people who will guarantee confidentiality, but who do not serve your best interests. For example, last week I reviewed perhaps the worst new product idea I have seen in the ten years of the WIN program. Sorry, I can’t tell you what it is, as our policy of confidentiality extends to even the worst of ideas. There is probably no way this inventor could be harmed by disclosure, as the prospects for success of this idea are about as low as they can get. Still, confidentiality at the idea evaluation stage is a very good idea.

The problem I observed in this case was that the inventor had entrusted his idea to an unnamed company or person. This individual/firm had helped him obtain a design patent (that could easily be designed around in about thirty seconds) and had provided him with a professional appearing but very shallow presentation of an idea that had no commercial potential. It is a good bet that this inventor had shelled out several thousand dollars and had nothing of value. Sure, he might have had their assurance that they would not steal his idea or tell others about it, but he did not receive the kind of help he needed and deserved.

Thus far I have not answered the question, “How can I be sure you won’t steal my idea?” The most truthful and accurate answer I can give you is simply that you can’t. There are no absolute, ironclad guarantees anyone can provide you. The best NDA in the world is only as good as your willingness and financial ability to enforce it. Even then you are powerless against those who are judgment proof and are not worth going after. Good patents are your best defense against thievery; however, they too are dependent on your willingness and financial ability to enforce them. Not telling anyone about your idea is pretty effective, but very unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, if you don’t tell anyone, you won’t ever be able to do anything with your idea. Second, even if you cloak your idea in secrecy, a parallel invention may come along and jerk the covers off of it.

Asking the Right Question. . .

The question the above inventor should have asked is, “Will you tell me the truth and treat me fairly?”

Obviously, anyone bent on misappropriating ideas, or providing meaningless or misleading services to inventors, is likely to answer this question in the affirmative. In fact, they are likely to provide lots of assurances that they are indeed on your side. So, what good does it do to ask the question? It depends on whom you are asking. Seek advice from the pros that don’t have a personal axe to grind. I know of no better way than to ask a local inventors’ group. An up-to-date national list of inventors’ groups can be found on the website of the United Inventor’s Association at www.uiausa.com.

The Last Word. . . .

Actually, this article isn’t about asking questions. It is very much about having the right frame of reference, rather than worrying about who is going to steal your idea. This will lead to inventor paranoia. Cloaking your idea in secrecy will scare others away and keep you from getting the help you very likely need. Instead, focus on who is going to treat you fairly. This is a much broader and more important issue. It also includes maintaining your confidences. After all, all things considered, security is still a legitimate issue, but not at the expense of everything else.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2001 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDCs

NOTE: This Brief is based on the remarks of the author at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 5th Annual Independent Inventors Conference, University of Maryland, October 6, 2000.

A Thought on the Subject. . .

No one really likes to be tested or examined. That’s why most of us drag our feet when we are due for a wellness physical. The reason we do so is probably not because we think it is unimportant. Deep down inside, most of us are afraid the exam will reveal that something is wrong. Inventors are no exception as most ignore the idea screening/evaluation stage in the industrial innovation process while corporations typically pay careful attention to it. This is a major reason inventors find innovation to be a very risky business.

An Inventor’s (Wrong) Expectation. . .

Originally I was going to start this session with a modest bit of marketing theory pertaining to the innovation process. I scrapped that start when I received a telephone call from a concerned inventor client who was upset because his evaluation report had arrived. He didn’t question the evaluation and thought it was quite comprehensive. He didn’t even object to the “Limited and Cautious” recommendation he had received. He wanted marketing help. Never mind the fact our disclosure form has some very specific statements about what we do and don’t do. He had his mind set on pursuing his invention—without any regard to the commercial potential of his idea.

It was his statement, “But I didn’t want an evaluation, I wanted help in developing and marketing my invention” that changed the course of this discussion. Why? Simple. With a mind set like this, this inventor and the many others like him are destined to be disappointed and to suffer loss of considerable time, money, and effort.

Note that I did not use the phrase “ripped off,” nor did I point a finger at the invention promotion industry. The term “suffer loss” includes being ripped off, but it is much broader as it includes unwarranted investment in legitimate services including prototyping, patenting, product design, packaging, and a host of other such services that may be needed to ready a product for the marketplace. To be sure, being ripped off does add insult to injury, but equal or greater injury can happen in the best and most respected circles. Financial loss is financial loss, regardless of the circumstances. The hurt in the bank account is the same.

Inventor Roulette. . .

Permit me to be as graphic as possible. Plowing ahead without first considering your goings is like playing “Inventor Roulette.” This is a bit like “Russian Roulette,” but with a very big difference. Instead of one bullet in a six round cylinder, the cylinder is fully loaded save one empty chamber; but in Inventor Roulette the revolver doesn’t have six chambers, it has between 100 and 1000 chambers, depending upon the industry and the current phase of development, and all but one are loaded.

These are not figures pulled out of the air. The new product development literature indicates that, on average, corporate inventors face an idea mortality rate of about 99 percent. The independent inventor, without corporate resources and expertise to back him or her up, faces considerably greater odds. No one knows for sure what the odds are, but the ratio of 1 successful innovation per 1,000 ideas keeps popping up in discussions with knowledgeable persons. Whatever the actual ratio may be, one thing is certain: innovation is a very, very risky business.

Corporations deal with this risk by evaluating potential new products very early in their gestation period. Over ninety percent of major corporations have a structured, formal new product idea evaluation process in place. Typically they do not stop there; they couple continued evaluation with research throughout the development and pre-commercialization phases of the innovation process. This process of reevaluation at each major stage in the innovation makes a good deal of sense because:

1. 1. The process of taking a new product to market becomes increasingly expensive at each progressive stage and it is always a good idea to review prior to embarking on an increased level of commitment to the project
2. 2. Innovation is essentially a process of risk reduction—by properly managing the risks at each stage it is possible to reduce the overall level of risk inherent in the innovation process and to reduce the potential for loss.

As a result, corporations face better than even odds at the market introduction stage with an overall new product success rate of 40-60 percent. Simply put, corporations do a better job of managing the risks involved. In contrast, independent inventors tend to blindly plow ahead without pausing for critical review. As a result, significant expenditures are made before the realities of the marketplace catch up to them.

Unfortunately, independent inventors face far greater odds than sophisticated, well-financed, and well-positioned corporations. As just noted, no one knows for sure what the odds are for inventors. One thing that is known is that as an idea turns into an invention and begins to wind its way through the innovation process, more information becomes known and it is possible to make better decisions about further development. The idea mortality rate is not likely to change. Even if this were possible, it might not be a good idea. Creativity depends upon thinking outside of the box. Anything that restricts that process is likely to reduce the flow of creative thinking. Financially speaking, creative thinking costs very little. Ideas are obviously critical to the innovation process, but they are also by far the least costly part of the innovation process. Education can help improve the quality of ideas and can help creative people become critical thinkers as well as creative thinkers. Still, the innovation process is inherently risky and the idea mortality rate will always be high.

Turning off the creative spigot won’t work. People who don’t invent don’t make any mistakes in the process of inventing. They also do not produce anything of value to themselves and society. Invention should be encouraged, not discouraged. Unhappily, the current practice leaves inventors holding the bag of incredibly high risk and costly mistakes. The current widespread practice of not engaging in serious critical thinking has costly consequences. For example, consider the cost involved in patenting an invention. The best estimate I can coax out of my friends at the Patent Office is that perhaps two percent of independent inventor patents are ever commercialized; a fair number of these fail to produce any revenues for the patent holder. It is a good bet that less than one percent of all independent patent holders earn a profit from their inventions. Assuming an average total cost of $4,000, the system doesn’t break even unless the lucky patentee earns more that $400,000, which is small comfort to the 99 who lost their investment.

Friends and Relatives…

One way to assess the potential of an idea or invention is through market research which typically involves survey research and analysis of secondary data published by the census bureau, industry associations, or other sources. A good deal of such information is readily available in libraries and through the Internet. The problem with such secondary data analysis is that it generally requires training and/or experience to make much sense out of this information. In addition, much of this information has little relevance to an inventor with an idea. Survey research can be a lot more relevant, especially if it provides some insights into the potential demand for an idea or invention. The problem with survey research is that tricky to do right and may require large numbers for statistical accuracy. Developing questions that are not open to different interpretations by respondents or that do not suggest the desired answer is not easy. It takes a lot of thought and effort to come up with a perfect set of questions. Even if perfection is achieved (which is rarely, if ever, the case), the person asking the questions can foul up the results if they are not skilled in the interviewing process. In other words, research that produces results that can be relied upon can be very expensive.

The garden variety of research conducted by inventors, usually limited to checking out a local store or asking a few friends and relatives, is usually worse than worthless as it is generally misleading. There is an exception to this: if you find a clone of your idea at the store or if your friends and relatives tell you your brainchild is ugly, you can safely shelve the idea without much fear that you are passing on a winner.

However, if you don’t find your idea, don’t assume it doesn’t exist. Likewise, don’t trust your friends and relatives to be truthful. After all, the chances are that they like you and don’t want to hurt your feelings. In addition, chances are you have engaged in a fair amount of personal selling in explaining your idea or invention to them. Both factors introduce whopping big biases that skew the results way out of reality. In other words, asking friend and relatives will virtually guarantee you good news. The problem is that this good news is very likely to turn sour after you have invested a lot of time and money in your project. You can ask strangers, but again unless you are skilled in the interview process, you will likely bias their answers to such an extent that the results will be unreliable. They too don’t want to hurt your feelings.

Managing Risk Through Evaluation. . .

The situation isn’t hopeless. In fact, the solution is relatively simple. Postpone falling in love with your invention and invest some serious time, effort and, yes, money in evaluating and researching the market for your idea. Remember this isn’t all about how good your idea is, functionally speaking. To a far greater degree, it is about how the marketplace is likely to react to your idea, provided you can get through corporate resistance to outside new product submittals, or buyers who already have far more new products than they have shelf space for, not to mention a marketplace that is not nearly as interested in your invention as you are. It will take a good deal of market research and planning to chart your course through the barriers and complexities of the marketplace.

Before you invest in a patent or a significant amount of market research and/or product development, you should have a solid professional assessment of the risks involved in your venture. Evaluation is not just about how big the market might be for your invention. These estimates are often meaningless when the risks involved are assessed.

It has been our longstanding professional opinion that commercial or technical evaluations should be performed by independent professional evaluators with no other axe to grind. That is, they should be independent of, and have no financial ties to, other fee-based inventor services. There is an inescapable potential conflict of interest when evaluation is part of a bundle of services offered to inventors. This does not mean that a conflict of interest is inevitable, but it does mean that the potential is there. In fact, there is some evidence that some invention promotion firms may be using evaluation as a marketing tool used to sell other services to inventors, rather than as an objective effort to help inventors make decisions that are in their own best interests. Bogus or overly optimistic evaluations serve no one’s interest except that of the provider. Optimistic evaluations are unfair to both inventors and those who may invest in their inventions. This is precisely why the WIN innovation evaluation program will not engage in inflating the potential value or deflating the risks of an invention. Others depend on what we say. Therefore, we have an obligation to everyone to be honest and objective in our assessments.

The WIN Invention Evaluation Service (www.wini2.com)

The best way we know to avoid this conflict of interest is to separate invention evaluation from other inventor services. This is precisely what we have done. WIN is a cooperative venture of Southwest Missouri State University and the Innovation Institute. WIN receives no government or corporate support. We are 100% supported by user fees. At the heart of our service is the PIES-IX evaluation format I developed in 1974 under National Science Foundation funding. Since then, PIES has been used to evaluate perhaps 40,000 ideas, inventions and new products by various users in the US and elsewhere.

We do not provide any additional fee-based services to our clients. Referral to our national network of resources (see Volume 1, No. 6 ) is at no cost. Likewise, there is no charge for any referrals we make to any company; nor do we receive any compensation of any kind from any individual, firm, or organization to which we might refer you. Our objective is to provide inventors and smaller enterprises with an honest and objective assessment of the risk profile and market potential of their ideas, inventions, and new products.

The PIES (Preliminary Innovation Evaluation System). . .

The purpose of PIES is fivefold:

1. To provide inventors and others with a structured, systematic assessment of the commercial feasibility of their ideas/inventions (is the market for your brainchild beautiful or ugly?).
2. To help inventors and others to avoid making costly errors in the development/commercialization of their ideas/inventions.
3. To assist inventors and others to better understand the nature and complexities of the innovation process.
4. To facilitate licensing, generating financial resources, or marketing efforts by providing unknown inventors and innovators with a credible third party assessment of their project.
5. To increase the flow of new products reaching the marketplace.

As indicated by Table I, PIES-IX uses 42 criteria to assess the commercial merits of an idea, invention, or new product under review.

Table 1: PIES-IX EVALUATION CRITERIA

Note that only one criterion deals with the better mousetrap theory; that is, the functional aspects of the invention. However, many focus in large part on factors external to the invention, but which impact very heavily on the commercial feasibility of every invention. There isn’t any magic in the PIES format and it is fairly straightforward to those who are reasonably well versed in the affairs of the marketplace. However, the interrelationship of these factors are often confusing to inventors not well versed in the affairs of the marketplace, or blinded to the complexities of the innovation process by their love affair with their idea or invention.

For example, most of you define your competition far too narrowly. The marketplace is not like the Patent Office where “not just like mine” counts. The marketplace could care less—it does not buy quarter-inch bits. . . it buys quarter-inch holes. Narrow definitions are comforting, but can lead to overstating the market and a multitude of strategic marketing errors. Competition does not end here. At the retail level, for example, your product will compete with every other product in that product category. Once on the shelf, you struggle with every other product in the store for the shoppers attention. In the case of the very large “mega” retailers, your competitors number between 65,000 and 90,000. Therefore, we define competition broadly. For a more detailed discussion of the dangers of a narrow definition of competition see “The Parable of the Ostrich and the Tiger” in an upcoming edition of Innovation Review (Vol. 1 No. 9—we’ll be posting it in June.)

Market Barriers To Innovation. . .

Just as many inventors bypass evaluation, inventors typically skip over many of the other barriers that lie in their path. Permit me to touch on three:

1. Rate of Adoption: One of the difficult tasks we face is convincing inventors that the marketplace is not as excited about their invention as they are. Let’s ignore the fact they don’t know about it and getting your message to them is often a multi-million dollar affair. There is a ton of research on how the marketplace reacts to new products and practices dating back to 1936 (this was very well documented by Everett Rogers in 1972). Most people will hold back until a new product is well-established and has become a known quantity. Only 2.5% of us are innovators, while 13% are early adopters. The rest of us are slow to move and about 16% may never budge from their current buying habits. This means that you have about 15% of the market for your idea/invention available to you during the early life of your product. If you can’t reach this market your product may never live to tell about it.
2. Market projection: The claim, “Everybody will want one” is a myth. In 26 years I have never seen an invention or product that everyone would want. Thus, projections based on general population numbers always overstate market potential. Products vary dramatically in terms of the size of their potential market (this market, by the way, must be further reduced by the rate of adoption for that particular product).
3. Market Structure: Some markets are tough to penetrate with new products. The rest vary between mean and impossible. This obviously is an overstatement, but not by much. Licensing in some industries is all but impossible. In some product categories your prospects are dim no matter how better your mousetrap may be. Some channels may be closed to you initially because of the high cost of promotion, or the high cost of doing business with that channel. Overcoming the barriers and bridging the gaps between you and the marketplace will require careful planning and informed forethought, even under the very best of conditions.

The PIES format is designed to consider these factors and to provide you with a profile of the risks that may not be apparent to the untrained eye.

In addition to a report detailing our findings, each client receives a copy of the PIES Innovation Evaluation Manual. It explains the PIES format and interprets our findings, and provides inventors with information about the innovation process. Thus, our program has a strong educational objective built into it.

In addition to our evaluation service, we have developed an innovation network of approximately 2,000 management, technical, legal, and technology transfer resources (our WIN Resource Partners). Referrals to state networks are made at no cost to our clients. There is a catch, however. If the evaluation indicates low potential, the referral service is not available. There is no sense in wasting either inventor or resource time and money on projects of little merit.

In a very real sense, we are in the sifting and winnowing business; we separate wheat from the chaff and try to make it easier for the wheat to go forward. But does this strategy work? Our research indicates that it does. Interviews conducted with buyers we’ve talked to suggest that the odds of getting buyer approval improved by a factor of ten for firms participating in our program. Likewise, a survey conducted some years ago indicated that the market penetration rate of our clients was about five percent, which is a good deal better—perhaps five or more times—than average.

Obviously, not all our clients get good news, but the results are not as bleak as the ratios above would indicate. About 15 percent are recommended for consideration by major retailers or other channels of distribution. This isn’t necessarily good news—it simply means that many of our clients do not contact us until they are well along in the innovation process and after they have invested a substantial amount of money in their inventions. Only about 10-15 percent of our clients are starting with an evaluation. Another 15 percent or so have invested in a patent search, which is a good idea. The remaining 60 percent split about even between patent applicants and patent holders. In short, most of our clients have played the game of inventor roulette to varying degrees.

The Last Word. . . .

There isn’t any magic or games being played here—just plain common sense. The WIN/PIES program works because it helps inventors to prepare for the tasks that lie ahead and it lends credibility to ideas and inventions of substance. In addition, it provides all inventors with a better basis for decision-making. The tough game of industrial innovation isn’t just about winning. Few inventors are successful the first time. Our research of successful inventions suggests there is a learning process involved and that inventors fail three times before their first success. In a very real sense, PIES is designed to help reduce the high cost of tuition in this school of hard knocks.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2001 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

A Thought on the Subject. . .

The “Peter Principle” applies to all of us—everybody has a point at which they are no longer able to single-handedly handle everything. Research suggests that very successful entrepreneurs ask a lot of questions and are quick to seek advice from others.

A Matter of Long Standing. . .

Obviously, no one knows what was going through the mind of the writer of Proverbs when he penned this advise, but it is a fair bet that he was offering this advise because he felt it was needed. That is, that people sometimes acted without knowledge. It is also a pretty good bet that he had observed the consequences of this behavioral strategy. Human nature hasn’t changed much in 3,000 years. People still act without getting advice. We all do it. Inventors are no exception.

There is one thing that may have changed: There is perhaps more advice available today for those who will ask than at any time in the past. In the private sector there are numerous consultants who offer advice on virtually any conceivable subject. Of course, you have to pay for their advice, but nevertheless, it is available. Likewise, in the public sector there is a lot of low or no cost advice available through universities, government programs, and non-profit organizations. We’ll discuss some of them in the sections to follow, but first there is an issue of long standing we need to address.

The toughest part of giving advice isn’t giving advice, it is getting those who need it to listen. In fact, at times it appears that those who need it the most are the least inclined to seek advice or listen when it is offered. Large corporations typically employ a lot of consultants. This isn’t just because they can afford it, it is also because they recognize they need it.

This isn’t just my opinion. In the thirty years I have been in the consulting business, I have discussed this issue with a lot of assistance providers including management and technical assistant consultants, doctors, lawyers, and clergy. They all say the same thing, and the literature, should you care to check it out, backs them up. If you are not impressed by literature or consultants, ask your own parents. They will likely tell you the same thing: Getting people to seek council and to listen to it are the two toughest challenges faced by those who offer advice.

The Benefits of Seeking Advice. . .

The literature will also tell you those who seek council do better. That is, their businesses, innovations, or inventions tend to progress faster and achieve a higher level of success than do those who do not seek help. Let’s face it, the Peter Principle applies to every single one of us. We all have a level of competence, beyond which we step at our own risk.

Applying this law to the innovation process and independent inventors, our Peter Principle—our level of incompetence—is determined by our educational background and our life experiences. If we do not have a relevant education or experience (preferably both), education or experience that is related to business and especially product development, we are at a significant disadvantage. This means that if we do not have the relevant education/experiences, we are likely to need help early in our efforts to develop, license, or commercialize our inventions. If we seek advice we can raise the bar on our level of incompetence. With the proper help ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things. For example, a Missouri inventor with no business background sought help from our Small Business Development Center in preparing a business plan. He raised $14 million from a major company. Obviously he had a very good project, but he got the money because his business plan convinced the investor that the inventor would make a good business partner.

Now, I do not want to paint a picture here that consultants (or whoever) are all knowing and you should check your brains at the door when seeking advice or assistance. It is quite common to use consultants as part-time managers as it is cheaper than hiring the needed expertise full time; however, the traditional role of the consultant is to give advice, and it is the traditional responsibility of the manager/owner/inventor/individual to listen to that advice and then make his or her own decision. Whoever reaps the reward, be it pain or profit, should be the one to make the decision.

The Natural Consequences of Not Seeking. . .

However, there is something that happens when we seek advice or aid from others. Sometimes when we take the time and invest the thought necessary to ask questions, we provide our own answers. For example, most of the product-related reasons inventions or new products fail are fairly obvious at even the idea stage. I made this observation in 1967 when I was a new MBA working for General Electric. We had invested close to $750,000 in a new product which failed grandly. The idea for a device which would record voice messages on a flat vinyl disc had come from a vice president. We took the idea and ran with it. We spent a lot of money and asked a lot of questions about design, features and need. We discovered that a lot of people hated to write letters, we moved full steam ahead without asking any questions about the product concept. When the product failed, I got around to asking some questions, and I ended up with a list of 19 problems, 15 of which should have been obvious to us at the idea stage. By the way, it was that list that served as the foundation for the invention evaluation format used by WIN today. In a very real sense, WIN clients have the opportunity to learn, at GE’s expense, from their (and my) mistake thirty years ago.

In addition, those who seek advice are exposed to the perspectives of others. The advice offered may not be on target, but honest opinions provide another perspective which may cause you to modify your view of how and what should be done. Also, when you and I start asking questions we frequently answer our own questions. As a Vero Beach, Florida inventor put it, asking questions and seeking advice “. . . puts your brain to working.” Thinking is a great way to resolve in a positive direction the conflict between what we want to do and what we ought to do. Thinking gives common sense a chance to be heard.

Despite all the good arguments for seeking council, the majority of people opt not to reach out even when the help is available and known to them. For example, less than one in four of the people who inquire about the WIN program actually participate. Obviously, WIN is not appropriate for everyone, but a goodly number of people who could benefit from an outside objective professional opinion of their invention pass by, and some of these people make costly mistakes that could have been avoided. Even amongst those who do participate, a significant number do not follow up on our suggestions to contact one of our resource partners in their states.

The WIN Resource Network. . .

Because of the near universal need for advice and assistance we started work on developing linkages with a variety of management and technical assistance (MTA) groups even before we launched WIN in 1990. In fact, networking is so important, we incorporated the concept into our name. We had a number of management and technical resources lined up before we launched the WIN program. Today we have 3,000 MTA resources scattered across the United States and Canada. Included are small business development centers, innovation centers, manufacturing extension centers, inventor organizations, Service Corps of Retired Executives chapters, Students In Free Enterprise chapters, patent depository libraries, patent attorneys, consulting firms, licensing agents, and a variety of other public and private sector resources.

We would like to make these resources available to every inventor. Unfortunately, we cannot. The bulk of these resources are funded with taxpayer money and they are charged with the responsibility for investing their time and money wisely. The objective of many of these programs is to stimulate economic development.

With the exception of inventor groups and the patent depository libraries, very few of them are dedicated to assisting inventors. In other words, inventors are a means to an end, not the targeted objective of these organizations. They are not places where inventors can move up their learning curve at their leisure. However, they are places where inventors with ideas and inventions of commercial merit may be able to get help in research, development, planning, and licensing their inventions.

Consequently, many of our resource affiliates have specifically requested that we not refer inventors or innovators to them until after we have completed an evaluation and have established at least some commercial merit. To put it bluntly, they do not want to waste their time and effort on projects that do not have at least a reasonable chance of success. Hence, we do not make the list of our resource partners available to the public. Inventors must first obtain a WIN evaluation and receive at least a recommendation for limited and cautious development.

An Example Where Asking Paid Off. . .

We have not placed the qualification bar at a high level. In fact, it may be a little too low. However, this policy has paid off in the past. For example, an Arizona inventor submitted a project we really liked. We even got some positive feedback from the relevant buyer at a large retailer. The problem was his invention was fifty years old and his patents had long expired. Consequently, his invention was in the public domain and available free to anyone who wanted to use it. With some help from the Arizona Business Connection, one of our resource partners, he contacted a major firm we had recommended to him. Because the material he submitted was professional in appearance and tone, he got past the initial screen common at most large firms and reached the desk of a high-level executive.

There, his material, plus our positive report, resulted in a test of his device, which in turn resulted in a license. We hear a lot about manufacturers ripping off inventor’s ideas, but it has been my experience that the bulk are honest folks. That was certainly the case here. The firm knew the idea was in the public domain, but they decided to do the right thing. As a former executive of the firm told me, “After all, it was his idea, not ours.” By the way, the former executive was my nephew who was not aware of my involvement in the project.

The Last Word. . . .

I chose this example because this inventor had invested thousands and a lot of time over a long period of time in attempting to license his invention. He had met with repeated failures and had given up on the project when he saw an article in a news-aper about the WIN program. Of course, luck had a good deal to do with this success story, but if it had not been for the evaluation and especially the help rendered by our resource partner, he would not have succeeded with his invention.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2001 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

A Thought on the Subject. . .

Ralph Waldo Emerson once penned, “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.” He never had to deal with modern retail buyers.

The Inventor’s Missing Link. . .

In their rush to visualize their inventions hotly selling in their favorite retail chain, the overwhelming majority of inventors—virtually all—fail to grasp the critical importance of the retail buyer and the retailer’s merchandising policies in charting their dreams. At WIN we have had a lot of experience with inventors who, claiming the superiority of their device, assume that Wal-Mart will, or at least ought to, carry their device. After all, their device was conceived to meet a need as they saw it; and their friends and relatives assured them that they had a good idea, if not a winner. As one inventor put it to us, “Wal-Mart will be very sorry if they pass on this wonderful opportunity.” There are a fair number of exceptions to this encapsulated profile, but it does seem to fit the majority of inventors.

Let’s set aside the issue of whether or not this inventor does indeed have a wonderful opportunity and focus on this inventor’s perspective for a moment. The inventor is looking at only one part of the issue at hand—his part. He hasn’t come to grips with the fact that there is a buyer involved who may have an agenda of his or her own. In addition, the inventors statement made it obvious he isn’t prepared to deal with, or react properly and beneficially, with a buyer at Wal-Mart or any other sophisticated buying organization for that matter.

At WIN, we advise a fair number of inventors their inventions lack commercial feasibility. Disappointment upon receiving such news is natural, but the vast majority of inventors accept it and are grateful for the impartial and honest advice. The inventors who are sometimes a little tough to deal with are those whose ideas have commercial potential and are referred to Wal-Mart for a formal assessment of marketability by an appropriate buyer. There, the buyer’s more intimate knowledge of the product area may reveal relevant Shadow Art which poses a problem for the inventor. In addition, corporate needs and merchandising policies also kick in. Sometimes, buyers recommend inventions and products for other channels of distribution, but this doesn’t always help reduce the frustration, keen disappointment, and, if you are reading between the lines here, occasionally outright anger, at having, in their perception, “been turned down by Wal-Mart.” To be sure, the vast majority handle such news graciously, but very few seem to understand it.

Where Understanding Leads. . .

Jason Clute was like other WIN inventors in that he was disappointed when the buyer told him he liked his invention, but he needed to get the product established before he would consider it. However, Jason understood where the buyer was coming from. He was a former retailer. So, Jason went about getting his product launched through other channels, and when he thought the time was right, he came back to Wal-Mart. Now about 5 years later, retail sales of his product line through Wal-Mart have topped $15 million, and Jason is a valued vendor at Wal-Mart.

Jason succeeded because he understood it took more than a better mousetrap to get on the shelves of a major retailer and he understood the needs and perspective of the buyer. He understood the buyer was basically a manager of a fair-sized business with a multitude of sometimes conflicting needs; a lot of products and vendors; a host of new products and a lot more products vying for the limited shelf space available for new or different products. Jason succeeded because he understood the culture of retailing and the business world, and he understood retail buying.

The Retail Buyer. . .

In many retail organizations buyers are very busy people. For example, the typical buyer at Wal-Mart is responsible for 8,800 SKUs (Stock Keeping Units). In addition, he or she has a stable of 500 vendors to manage.

Obviously, the buyer’s roles and responsibilities vary a good deal from one retail organization to another. However, aside from being busy, there are some significant commonalities among them inventors and innovators must understand these if they are to be successful in dealing with sophisticated retail buying organizations. Among these are the following:

1. The buyer is your chief representative of the “channel captain.” He or she rules the roost. This is the person hopeful vendors must deal with. In sophisticated buying organizations, appealing to higher authorities rarely works. Those higher up in the retail organization will rarely interfere with a buyer’s buying decisions. They have to trust their buyers because they don’t have the knowledge or the time to interfere. Besides, they know it is not a good idea to split responsibility and authority. They know second guessing buyers and then holding them responsible is a very good way to destroy buyer morale. Don’t burn your bridges with buyers by giving them a bad time or attempting to appeal their decisions up the ladder. Do listen to them carefully, and if they make suggestions, follow through on them if you hope to reverse their decisions. If you feel the buyer overlooked something, state your case professionally and briefly. Don’t argue with a buyer. You will lose and you’re wasting time and energy. Buyers are not always right, but they have the right to be wrong. Work to build a long term relationship.
2. Deal with your disappointment in a mature fashion. We received the following e-mail by mistake. The sender was not one of our clients, so it is not cloaked under our confidentiality policy. Apparently the individual’s product had been rejected by a buyer:

This ban on xxxxx’BBQ sauce is downright stupid. Do you all not know that the people you choose to push away are the same folks that are your best customers! Kick the paying customer in the ——. While those others rob you blind. Sam is turning in his grave you sorry —-. By the way you lost a loyal customer.

This is a very good example of how not to deal with disappointment. Aside from being very un-business-like, the response guarantees the buyer will not be anxious to deal with this individual in the future. Was the buyer wrong in rejecting this product? Probably not – the last report I heard was that there were 86 different brands of BBQ sauce on the market, many of which are well known and established in the marketplace. Had Jason Clute dealt with his first disappointment in like manner, he would have missed out on a $15 million opportunity.

3. Buyers are very busy people with a multitude of responsibilities. Few, if any, buyers have time to waste in chit chat or in listening to long detailed histories about the development of an invention or new product. Be brief, professional and to the point in presentations, conversations and correspondence.
4. Because they are busy, buyers favor multi-product firms. The busier the buyer, the higher the one product hurdle. Understand that you are at a definite disadvantage with only one or two products to sell. You may be better off working through a distributor or a manufacturers rep (of related products) than by championing your own cause as they may have a better chance of getting through to the buyer.
5. Buyers have a focused holistic view of their world. That is, buyers focus on their area of buying responsibility, but within that area their objective is to develop a balanced product mix that maximizes sales revenues/profits for their area. They are not as likely to be as interested in the virtues of your product (as perceived by you) as they are in how your product/invention fits into their overall product mix. They will quickly pass on even good products if the product doesn’t in their product mix or with corporate merchandising policies or strategies. Before you approach a retail buyer do your homework. Get to know the product line where your product best fits. If it isn’t clear, ask someone on the retail floor where a product like yours would best fit. If it is clear, ask anyway; it’s easy to be wrong. Build a case for your product. Show how, where and why your product fits. If you don’t have enough information to do this, you are not ready to talk to that retailer.
6. Buyers abhor three things—customer complaints, empty shelf spaces and slow moving products. The first of these is their chief nightmare. Opportunities are often quickly passed by or dropped when customer dissatisfaction surfaces. For example, a buyer recently called a vendor after the second customer complaint reached his desk. He got excuses rather than solutions and dropped the product with the fourth complaint. To the buyer this wasn’t just an issue of a customer being dissatisfied with a single product in his line of perhaps 1,000 products or so; it was an issue of the customer being dissatisfied with Wal-Mart! As the buyer put it, “You can replace a product, but how do you replace a customer?”
7. Buyers, at least most of them, were born skeptical. Don’t expect a buyer to take your word for it that the customer will love your product, buy your product off the shelf without benefit of promotion, or that he or she will still like your product after taking it home. Expect to ante up some proof.
8. New products, particularly if they have not undergone rigorous environmental use testing, or do not have a substantial history of sales and satisfied customers, are always risky business. In the buyers mind innovation isn’t necessarily, or even usually , something to get excited about. The majority of buyers, particularly those in mass merchandise/discount stores would rather deal with products which have been pioneered by someone else. This reduces their level of perceived risk on both counts. Unless your device/product is radically new, don’t tell the buyer that, “There’s nothing else on the market like it.” First of all, he or she is very likely to know better, and you have just damaged your credibility by stating with that claim that you do not know your market. Second, this may be the last thing he or she wants to hear. Explain how your product fits in the product category the buyer is responsible for. Define your competition broadly. Outline your significant product advantages, but don’t exaggerate or major in minor product advantages. Know your competition.
9. Buyers are concerned about more than your product. Expect them to ask a lot of questions about your enterprise. He or she isn’t being nosey. Rather, the buyer has to be satisfied that you are able to deliver the right product in the right quantities at the right quality at the right price at the right place at the right time. These are critical issues, particularly with a firm like Wal-Mart where distribution centers hold inventory for no more than a couple of hours to a couple of days.

This list doesn’t exhaust all of the common facets of retail buyers. However, it does touch on some of the elements we have learned are important to building a good relationship with potential vendors.

Some Good Advice From Entrepreneur . . .

Karen Axelton’s article, “Scaling the Wal” in the January 1998 issue of Entrepreneur (January 1998, P.133) makes for some good reading. At the end, Karen offers the following advice:

To do business with Wal-Mart, you’ve got to know your product and market intimately. Don’t approach the retail giant unless you can answer the following questions:

• Where is the future growth in the market going to come from?
• How will your product or service help position Wal-Mart to take advantage of this growth (gain market share and control costs)?
• Who is your customer (age, income, median family size, geographical location and population size)?
• What is the overall size of the market/industry, and who is your competition?
• What added value does your product or service have over your competition?
• How will your product or service impact other related products or services in Wal-Mart stores?

This is good advice. Heed it.

The Last Word. . . .

If you are not ready to follow through on these suggestions, the chances are pretty good you are not ready to deal with the buyers at sophisticated retail organizations. There is nothing wrong with that. All of us need to improve or learn in a lot of areas of our lives. Your best bet strategy is to target the more informal channels of distribution relevant to your invention/product. As the writer of Proverbs once observed, “Do not despise the things of small beginnings.” (Proverbs). A new firm with one new product typically scares the dickens out of a national level buyer and with good reason. The odds are against such firms. Get your product established. Prove your mettle and develop a market introduction strategy for your invention/new product. Remember, before you will even get a chance to reach the customer, you will have to gain favor with those who act as gatekeepers to the marketplace, the retail buyer. Above all, he or she has a lot of alternatives; and you need the buyer a whole lot more than he or she needs you. For the buyer, there are always other opportunities..

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2001 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

A Thought on the Subject. . .

When General Motors tried to introduce the Chevrolet Nova into Latin America it shared the same fate as NesCafe. They both failed; after all, who wants a car named “Doesn’t Go” or an instant coffee with a name like “Is Not Coffee.” Ignore culture at your own peril.

The Inventor’s Negative Image. . .

Let’s face it, in the United States independent inventors are the Rodney Dangerfields of the marketplace. Often ridiculed by the press and ignored by policy makers, independent inventors are still an essential part of the American economy, contributing one-third to one-half of all important inventions. So, what gives rise to all this disdain? In part, it is America’s abiding faith in Corporate America. In 1956, John Kenneth Gailbraith, a leading economist of the times, proclaimed:

Most of the cheap and simple inventions have, to put it bluntly and unpersuasively, been made. Because development is costly, it follows that it can be carried on only by a firm that has the resources which are associated with considerable size.

Attitudes like this simply do not leave much room for recognizing the potential contributions of independent inventors.

Inventors themselves often contribute significantly to this negative image. Anyone who has worked with inventors for very long has a few stories to tell, like the inventor who responded to a letter from the Oregon Innovation Center rejecting his invention because it was a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. He angrily responded with, “I don’t give a d___ what laws you guys pass in Washington, I say my idea will work!!!!” Another inventor penciled a proposal to the president of a very large retail company, offering to sell his invention to the company in exchange for a used mobile home for his son. The paper was lined, but he didn’t stay within the lines, and he filled the margins with comments as well, starting in the lower right hand corner and writing up the page, across the top and down the left hand margin. It was difficult to read his letter because the soft lead had smeared and his handwriting and spelling were very poor. Now, a lot of us don’t have very good handwriting and some of us will write in the margins when communicating informally, but few people in the business community would use this approach when trying to sell something to the president of a very large corporation. That sort of thing simply isn’t done in American business culture.

The Inventors’ Cultural Gap. . .

Some inventors are sophisticated and very knowledgeable about the innovation process. These experienced individuals frequently don’t need a lot of help in commercializing their ideas because, through experience, they have moved well up the learning curve. However, most independent inventors are ordinary citizens who, like most Americans, know little about industrial innovation or the wiles and ways of the marketplace. These inventors are easy marks for invention promotion firms who offer to market their inventions.

Many inventors are likely candidates for failure, not because their ideas lack merit, but because they, like our inventor above, violate the cultural norms of the business and technical communities. Cultural norms you say? Business isn’t a culture, it’s an activity. That’s partially true. Business is an activity, but around each sustained activity, a culture (or, more accurately, a sub-culture) has or will evolve. Those who ignore or violate cultural or sub-cultural norms do so at the peril of their objective.

Many inventor proposals are rejected well before somebody passes on the technical or commercial merits of the idea or invention at hand. Inventors aren’t the only ones who miss the target because of cultural violations. We, including large sophisticated corporations, can all do this if we don’t take the time to check out other cultures before we make contact with them. As noted above, the Nova (Chevrolet) and NesCafe did not do well in Latin and South America. It wasn’t because our southern neighbors don’t drive cars or drink coffee. Would a car with the name “Doesn’t Go” or a coffee labeled “Is Not Coffee” have much appeal to you? These English speaking marketers violated a basic marketing rule: they didn’t know their customer. They neglected to translate their English names into Spanish before launching their products in Latin America. They failed to consider culture, and their products failed as a result. The list of corporate cultural goofs is long and makes for amusing reading, but they add nothing to the bottom line. The same is true of the cultural mistakes of inventors.

Inventor Cultural Mistakes. . .

Inventors might as well toss their inventions and new product ideas into the trash rather than present them to industry in the manner which is the norm today. Sure, there are a few companies which will look past grossly exaggerated claims of market potential, foolish statements like “there is no competition” or “everybody will buy one,” a lot of misspelled words, incomplete sentences, exaggerated claims of marketability and value, inadequate costing, lengthy and unnecessary discussions of the history of the invention (even family history!), heavy reliance on family and friends for concept validation, inadequate costing, and so on. However, these firms are few and far apart. In general, corporate attitudes toward independent inventors are negative if not downright hostile. Even those firms open to outside new product ideas/inventions still expect a straight-forward and professional description or prospectus, and a realistic view of the potential of the idea at hand. When they don’t get it, the invention and the inventor may be headed for rejection, often before anyone passes on the commercial merits of the new product. Ignore culture at your own peril.

Bridging the Cultural Gap. . .

Over the years, I have had numerous discussions with inventors along this line. A lot of inventors seem to expect anyone who has more resources than they should accommodate them because they are small. As an inventor once put it, “But I’m just an individual inventor. They can’t possibly expect me to be professional. It just isn’t fair. They should understand.” We’ll debate this point of view in a future issue of IR, but for now suffice it to say fairness has nothing to do with it, and “they” won’t understand. If the cultural gap is going to be bridged, it is the inventor who will need to do the building.

This is where SCORE, SBDC, or one of our other Innovation Resource Partners can be of immense help. Volunteers don’t need to be experts on the patent system or product development. Some common sense, and an awareness of American business culture, will do. Helping inventors draft professional letters of transmittal or introduction and assisting them in describing and explaining their invention in a concise but adequate manner can be of immense help to inventors. Presently, over 90% of the disclosures WIN receives violate business cultural norms. We are accustomed to this and look beyond cultural expectations. We have had years of experience in sticking with even the crudest disclosure. Still, we too are influenced by a good solid disclosure. Investors, licensing agents, and others in industry tell us unsolicited new product disclosures submitted to them follow the same pattern, and the bulk of them are trashed in the mind of the viewer even before he or she reads the material.

Most inventors need help in drafting appropriate letters to industry and in presenting their ideas/inventions on paper. Perhaps the idea of helping inventors by editing their communications with industry does not sound like a major contribution. However, helping inventors to put their best foot forward will increase the chances of avoiding the wastebasket. Serious new product submittals are far more likely to get serious attention. We don’t have any solid data on this topic, but our experiences and discussions with people in the business community suggess chances of getting a serious review increase perhaps four-fold, and maybe more, with a well-done presentation and transmittal letter. For example, an Arizona inventor with a 50 year old invention had run out of hope when he contacted WIN. We liked his invention and referred him to an Arizona Resource Partner who helped him prepare a brief presentation and letter of submission to a major corporation. The company licensed the idea and it is now in world-wide distribution. The point here is the invention wouldn’t have gotten to first base without a solid, professional-appearing presentation.

The Last Word. . . .

In the nearly 26 years I have been working with inventors, I have seen a lot of good ideas that were poorly presented. Good handwriting and the ability to spell or write properly don’t always go hand-in-hand with creative talent. Consequently, a lot of good ideas don’t get a chance. The first challenge faced by the inventor is not getting someone to buy his or her idea or invention, it is getting someone’s attention on the other side of the cultural gap.

I’m not suggesting it is possible to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. However, it is possible to reduce the chances a silk purse will be viewed as a sow’s ear. In fact, that is precisely what happened to the WIN client mentioned above when he got help in presenting his 50-year old invention to a major health products firm. Their combined effort got through the corporate screening person to the president of the firm who thought enough of what they had to say he asked the head of R&D to evaluate the device. Our Resource Partner devoted a couple of hours to the inventor and made a major difference. So can you. If you are smart enough to invent something, you are smart enough to present it right. Take the time and get help if you need it. If success is one of your objectives, learn how to play by the cultural rules of the great game of innovation. The rules are not all that difficult and learning them makes the game a lot more fun and rewarding. We’ll be more specific about the rules for this game in a future issue of IR.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2000 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

A Thought on the Subject. . .

Doing something better than anyone else is the heart of the innovation process. Certainly, technological improvements are important. The problem, as noted in the last issue of IR, is that a lot of inventors, investors, and innovators put too much stock in being better. The basic problem with the Better Mousetrap Theory is that better mouse trappers typically ignore all else; they assume that being better in usually some relatively minor way is enough. Typically, improvements need to be significant, and they need to be supported by a well-planned marketing strategy.

The Battlefield. . .

The modern marketplace is a very complicated affair. It typically takes a coordinated attack on a variety of fronts to carve out a niche in the marketplace. It is often overlooked that new product success always comes at someone else’s expense. There are no empty shelves or unclaimed customers floating around. Competition is everywhere, and every new product has an established alternative. Every shelf, every customer, and every dollar is committed somewhere. Whatever shelf space, customer loyalty or sales a new product gets, it has to take away from somebody else; and the last time I checked, there wasn’t anyone out there who was giving away shelf space or market share. The marketplace is a battlefield. Territory is fought over, and gained or lost. This isn’t a peaceful process. It is warfare, with every bit of turf occupied and hotly contested. New products are the invading force; and existing products are the dug-in defenders. The latter is experienced, knows the terrain, is dug into the channels of distribution and may well be fortified by channel loyalty. Furthermore, these defenders will likely have an element of support from the resident populace – your potential customers. Don’t expect them to rush to the beach or landing strip to greet you with open arms and pocketbooks. In general, only about two percent of consumers are innovators. The rest will hang back at least a little, depending upon their personality profiles and the degree of customer loyalty earned by the defender. Don’t expect anyone to be politely knocking at your door. I expect even Mr. Emerson passed by a goodly number of better mousetraps as he purchased existing products out of habit, loyalty, or in an effort to avoid the risk always associated with the new or unknown. Expect to fight for every inch of shelf space and for every sale. The notion of the world beating a path to your door, while you stay home perfecting your mousetrap, is more of a pipedream than it is a theory. It certainly isn’t reality.

Some Realities of the Battlefield. . .

First, introducing a new product isn’t an ice cream social. It is a war in which there are losers and winners. For every point of market share won, some one loses a point. For each dollar of profit earned by a new venture/product, someone else has lost profit. For each person hired because of the success of a new product, someone else has lost his or her job. The stakes are high, and the battle can get rough before it is over.

Second, product superiority is crucial. That’s right, a better mousetrap is essential to market success. The failure rate of copycat or incremental improvement products is high, especially in our value-oriented marketplace. Consumers are better educated than ever before and a lot of consumers and companies are shopping smarter in an effort to get more for their money. No, this isn’t a return to the Better Mousetrap Theory, far from it. It is simply an application of a long established principle of warfare that an invader has to be better than a defender to capture market share. According to major General Fred Marty (US Army, Ret.), it takes three times superiority to dislodge a well-defended opposing force. U.S. forces have used this ratio in strategic planning for at least as far back as World War II. Perhaps we haven’t spent enough quality time and effort doing research on strategic planning in the marketplace, but I couldn’t find anyone who was willing to hazard a guess as to what the actual ratio is in introducing a new product. The actual ratio isn’t as important as the principle here: significant new product advantages are essential in doing battle in the marketplace.

Third, significance isn’t defined by the inventor or the innovation. In this contest, only the opinion of the marketplace counts. To be sure, product advantages can often be quantified and expressed in technical terms, but the opinion that really counts is that of the marketplace. Inventors and innovators should not assume that customers, or the marketplace, share their enthusiasm. Here, it is the customer’s view that is important.

Fourth, expect to leave home. The world isn’t going to beat a path to your door, so you will need to go out into the world. Actually, you will need to venture forth well before your product attempts to penetrate the marketplace. Innovators who stay close to home during the research & development phase of the innovation process are likely to mold their product in their own image and miss the needs and wants of the marketplace in the process. End user research should be a part of the development process. It is important to get to know the marketplace early on. Far too often what little research that is conducted by inventors is done in an effort to validate what has already been done, rather than guide the development process. Often, such research is limited to family and friends or is conducted in such a manner as to bias results in a positive direction. Even under the best of conditions, buying intention research is of very doubtful validity. It is difficult to replicate actual buying conditions, so results often do not reflect reality. Untrained researchers make such research even more questionable. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom keeps inventors close to home and their ideas under wraps. To be sure, inventors need to be careful to avoid public disclosure, or to leak too much information about their inventions, but they desperately need to get more input from the marketplace as they develop their inventions.

Fifth, strategic planning is essential to success, even when the competition is weak. For example, when the Allied forces gathered to do battle with Iraqi forces in Desert Storm, they amassed a far superior force. Still, they didn’t get cocky. They planned their attack. They kept the cost to the Allies low by doing an end run around the Iraqi forces and hitting them from behind where their forces were weak. A frontal attack would have worked because we had the firepower on hand, but it would have been costly. The same is true in the marketplace. Frontal attacks are costly and sometimes don’t work, particularly where product advantages or firepower in the form of promotional resources or marketing expertise are marginal. Like in Desert Storm, a far better strategy is to look for the opposition’s weak points and attack there. Instead, many inventors seem to be fond of attempting to launch their products where the competition is likely to be the strongest and at the point where the competition is most likely to be the most determined to defend. In the case of consumer products, this is likely to be the large, high volume mass merchandisers. A better strategy is to attempt to penetrate more modest markets or channels, move up the learning curve (by learning from one’s mistakes), establish a base of customer loyalty and become better known in the marketplace. It takes a sizeable beachhead from which to launch and support a major attack in either the marketplace or battlefield.

Sixth, there is indeed opposition. Over ninety percent of WIN clients tell us there is no competition for their invention. If there is no competition, there is little need to pay attention to competing products. This is a great way to get ambushed or outflanked. There is always competition, and competition never takes kindly to interlopers attempting promotion, leapfrogging your improvements or copying your new product, among other competitive reactions. Ignoring the competition is also a great way to underestimate the cost of doing battle. Launching new products can be very expensive; and in general, the stronger the competition, the higher the cost of entering a new market. A lot of good new products fail simply because they were launched with inadequate working capital. Growth always consumes capital and rarely, to the point of never, produces capital. Inadequate financial planning always creates an opportunity for the competition. Hot new products that run out of capital, run out of steam and often never recover their momentum.

Seventh, do your homework. Better mouse trappers frequently fail because they have not taken the time to learn the lay of the land they are fighting over. They do not know what channels of distribution are best for their new product; they frequently know even less about these channels. Near ignorance of business practice and customs is the norm. Likewise, the mix of the product, price, service, distribution and promotion has been given little thought. Their launch into the marketplace is often more of a casual stroll in a park than it is an invasion of well-defended territory. They do not know their competition, the channels of distribution or the needs or habits of their target market. In fact, they may not even know that they have a target market as they stroll right into the waiting guns of the enemy—the established competitors.

The Last Word. . . .

This issue of the Review isn’t very encouraging. In fact, all this talk about warfare is downright discouraging. I believe in encouraging inventors and innovators, but not at the expense of reality. Traversing the path from idea to market introduction is a complicated affair, fraught with risks, barriers and potholes. It is a rare new product that doesn’t face competition from a variety of other products. Frequently, the competition is intense and the competitor well entrenched at either the retail or consumer level. Those who aren’t inclined to do battle, or who are not able to muster the firepower to enter the foray, are well advised to seek a licensee who has both the will and the resources to do battle.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2000 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

A Thought on the Subject. . . .

Public enemy number one for the inventor isn’t the invention promotion firm. While they receive high billing, the inventor’s main nemesis may well be Ralph Waldo Emerson. He’s the guy who, over a century ago, popularized the notion: “Build a better mousetrap and the world will beat a path to your door.” Actually, he made the same claim for better books and better sermons.

The Better Mousetrap Theory. . .

The Better Mousetrap Theory is alive and well, and wreaking havoc among America’s inventors. The theory sounds right. After all, if you build a better mousetrap or other product, shouldn’t the world beat a path to your door? Isn’t this what the innovation process is all about?

The major problem with this theory is it doesn’t work. Adherence to it will lead an inventor down the not-so-primrose path to costly mistakes, and ultimately to the graveyard of failed inventions and inventors. Emerson failed to define “better” and he failed to consider the reality of the marketplace and consumer (buyer) behavior.

It Takes More Than A Better Mousetrap, Even For Mousetraps. . .

So, what’s wrong with the Better Mousetrap Theory? As just noted, it doesn’t work. Don’t new products need to offer the market something better? You bet. The problem with this theory is that it does not define “better,” and it puts too much emphasis on the building or technical side of the innovation equation. Some years ago, a researcher did a search of the prior art developed since Mr. Victor’s creative genius was unleashed upon the mouse world. He found several hundred devices for entrapping these furry little vermin, most of which, the researcher concluded, had some functional advantages over Mr. Victor’s invention. However, at the time, the Victor Mousetrap still had the lion’s share of the market. We did a quick search on the Internet, and found that since 1976, over 100 patents have been issued for new mousetrap devices.

In order to gain some insight into market share, we checked the mousetrap business at Wal-Mart. There, we found Victor had a whopping 98% share of market, relative to other mechanical devices for killing mice. Few Wal-Mart shoppers have beaten a path to the doors of those inventors of better mousetraps. They haven’t had much of an opportunity, either. However, we also found that chemical means of extermination had nibbled away at the overall market. We found that in sales, chemicals had a 51% share of the market, whereas mechanical devices had 49%.

There is a lesson to be learned here for inventors who are fond of defining competition very narrowly, which includes over 90% of all WIN Innovation Center clients. Define competition in terms of function, not form. Mr. Victor’s major competition did not come from another mechanical genius; he lost out to a chemical genius. Sorry, independent inventors cannot take credit for this one. One of the basic patents for chemical means of reducing rodent populations was issued to a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. By the way, for those readers who are enamored with exotic new technologies, this patent is one of the most, if not the most, financially rewarding patents, ever issued to the UW-Madison, which incidentally has the largest funded research program of any university in the world.

Commercial significance isn’t technology driven, it is benefit driven. To most consumers in the United States, chemical warfare against rodents is a matter of convenience. The user does not have to come face to face with the reality of his or her crime against another creature, nor does he or she have to dispose of the victim’s remains. In addition, chemicals require a lot less maintenance and they keep on killing. However, to consumers in many economies, it is a matter of who lives and who dies—people or pests. Thus, chemical mouse/rat traps have huge societal and economic implications. They are indeed a better mousetrap. Please note however, virtue here is defined in terms of benefits, not technology. People don’t buy quarter-inch bits; they buy quarter-inch holes; but that will have to wait for another Brief. There is a more directly relevant issue to be discussed here.

The New Product Strategic Mix. . .

There are two basic problems with the Better Mousetrap Theory. First, as just noted, it focuses on hardware, and not benefits. Second, it puts all of the inventor’s strategic eggs into one basket. Better mouse-trappers tend to ignore the other elements in the new product strategic mix. In marketing literature, this mix is known as the “marketing mix.” In either case, the mix consists of several strategic components—product, price, promotion, place and policy—which can be manipulated, or adjusted to meet the needs of the marketplace, or to best market a product or service. Strategies will change, depending on the situation, but the basic components remain the same.

First, let’s look at the product component of the new product strategic mix. Product design should not start in the laboratory, or on the inventor’s workbench. Rather, it should start with the intended customer. Customer research should always be built into the development process early on. Most inventors do little or no concept research with potential customers. The Better Mousetrap Theory lets them get away with this, if not encouraging them to do so, by placing the emphasis on the product/invention, rather than the customer’s need. This is virtually always a mistake. Few people are so gifted they can optimize product design without any input from the marketplace during the development phase of the innovation process. Even very simple straightforward products involve choosing between options, in terms of design, appearance, features, and quality. In their haste to reach the market, most inventors and innovators simply charge ahead. This strategy is a close kin to throwing darts blindfolded. It pays to peek.

Likewise, in most cases, pricing is not a cut and dried affair. Manufacturers do not have the pricing flexibility they once had and in many cases they do not control the channels. It is not unusual for others in the channel of distribution, particularly retailers, to tell the manufacturer what the product will sell for. Still, price is an important strategic component in many new product situations. Careful thought should be given to price, particularly to the price quality tradeoff. Likewise, innovators need to consider carefully their basic introductory pricing strategy. In some instances, it may be better to penetrate the market as deeply and quickly, as possible. For example, if major competitors are likely to surface quickly, or perhaps are already present in the marketplace, then a low penetration price may be best. Low prices tend to discourage new competitors, and can be an effective tool to use in attempting to take market share away from an entrenched competitor – Wal-Mart used this strategy in entering the soft drink market and quickly gained market share from some well entrenched competitors. On the other hand, high prices typically attract competitors, particularly where high margins are possible. Still, this strategy is appropriate where initial volumes are likely to be low, or where there are other barriers to market entry operating such as strong patent protection.

Promotion is the third component of the mix. A lot of inventors and innovators ignore promotion, assuming their product will sell itself off the shelf. Unfortunately, this is generally not the case, particularly in mass merchandise stores. The basic problem is, if consumers don’t know about a new product, they are not aware of its existence. That seems pretty obvious, but inventors often miss this point.

The problem doesn’t stop here—if there is no awareness, there is no interest. If there is no interest, there is no desire, and where there is no desire, there is no action. Moving shoppers from awareness, through interest, desire and on to action, is a tall order. Few products have such instant appeal to move shoppers through this process while sitting on a retailer’s shelf.

This isn’t the end of the hurdles faced by a new product. In most discount stores there is little opportunity for point of purchase promotion. The task of in-store promotion falls to the front of the package. Promotional messages on the back or side panels are impudent, until sufficient interest is generated, and the shopper picks up the package. If the front panel can’t capture the shopper’s attention, and generate enough interest to motivate the shopper to stop and pick up the package, the shopper will simply walk on.

The major challenge faced by a new product is simply getting noticed. Mass merchandise/discount shoppers tend not to be leisurely shoppers. In general, they shop with a mission, and for the most part, they are not looking for new products. Even if they are, the competition for the shopper’s attention as he or she moves through a store is horrendous! As a shopper moves down an aisle, every product, on both sides of that aisle, is in competition with every other product on that aisle for the shopper’s attention.

This gives the term “competition” a new and broader meaning. Inside a store, competition is everywhere. For this reason, many manufacturers rely on print and electronic media to get their product message across. Here, the small firm is at a definite disadvantage, as most small firms can’t afford to advertise their products in a meaningful manner. This inability can have a significant impact on the fourth component of the new product mix, place or if you prefer, distribution.

The channel of distribution used to launch a new product is often a critical element in new product strategic planning. A lot of otherwise potentially good new products fail because the wrong channel is selected to introduce the new product. The right channel depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the product; market customers and, as just noted, the innovator’s ability to support the new product with adequate promotion. Those with limited promotional budgets, are well advised to introduce their products through channels (stores) with point of purchase or sales support. The January 1998 issue of Entrepreneur contains an interesting article on getting a new product into Wal-Mart, “Scaling the Wall,” by Karen Axelton (p.133). Ms. Axelton observes that “for many entrepreneurs, Wal-Mart is the Holy Grail of retailing�.” She advises readers to “Begin by asking yourself three questions: is Wal-Mart right for your product? Is your product right for Wal-Mart? Is your company ready for Wal-Mart?” This is good advice. These same questions should be asked of any other store in planning the distribution strategy for a new product.

Policy is the fifth, and final component, of the new product strategic mix. Included here are such issues as product service, warranty and customer service policies. Low priced, easy to understand or use, improvement type new products may not require much support. However, these policy issues may be a very important component of the introduction strategy.

The Last Word. . . .

The significance of the New Product Strategic Mix is that innovators have more to consider than simply a new product. To be sure, the product is important, but it takes a good deal more than a better mousetrap before the world will start beating a path to your door. For example, when Burger King developed what it thought was a better French fry than McDonald’s, it spent $78,000,000 to tell you and I about it. Even when all of the elements of a proper new product/marketing mix are in place, wrestling market share away from those who have it may be difficult and costly….

Note: In the next issue of IR we’ll tackle the battle of better mousetraps.

Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.

Copyright © 2000 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s

Vol. 1, No. 1
April, 2000

(revised June 11, 2000)

TOPIC BRIEF: INNOVATION (in) REVIEW (IR)

A Thought on the Subject. . . .

Everyone is creative to some degree. What separates inventors from the rest of human kind is the initiative and drive to do something with that creativity. What separates successful inventors and innovators from the rest of their kind is very often humility – the willingness to pause in their rush to success long enough to learn how to master the innovation process. Few come to the task fully prepared.

Innovation (in) Review . . .

The purpose of Innovation (in) Review is to produce better-educated inventors and innovators. By helping inventors and innovators to improve their understanding of the Commercial innovation process, we hope they will make better decisions and become more effective and efficient at all stages of the innovation process. Innovation (in) Review is a bit of an innovation itself; it is an electronic journal dedicated to inventors and innovators. The concept is not new—we borrowed it from others. Such is the nature of innovation. Most of what we create is based or dependent upon the results of the creative efforts of others.

IR Sponsor. . . .

Innovation (in) Review is brought to you by the WIN Innovation Center (formerly the Wal-Mart Innovation Network), a cooperative venture of the Innovation Institute, the College of Business Administration at Southwest Missouri State University, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WIN is an innovation evaluation service intended to help inventors and innovators to better understand the potential risks and rewards associated with their ideas, inventions and new products. Readers desiring more information about WIN can check out our Website at www.wini2.com. To learn more about The College of Business Administration visit www.coba.smsu.edu.

The Independent Inventor�

During the past several decades, the role of the independent inventor has been the subject of debate. In the mid-fifties, John Kenneth Gailbraith reflected the then current thinking when he concluded that the cost of research and development had eliminated the independent from the game of innovation. What followed in the sixties and seventies, and continues today, were a series of studies concluding with statements that this was not so as independents were still major contributors. Chester Carlson’s experiments in xerography, the garage of two guys named Hewlett and Packard, Mrs. Bowerman’s waffle iron (which spawned the first Nike shoe prototype), and a technological whiz kid, Bill Gates, are offered as proof to the contrary. Still, the debate goes on.

Actually, both sides are missing a key point. Both can offer sufficient examples to prove their point to their own satisfaction, but the point they seem to miss is organizations do not invent, people do. People who are ignorant of the innovation process do not make good inventors, regardless of their organizational affiliation, or lack thereof. An environment in which creativity is encouraged and supported through education and other efforts works for all. That is why IR is about producing better-educated persons. Obviously, we are positioned to serve independent inventors and innovators (terms that will be defined in a future issue of IR). However, corporate and institutional readers are welcome as well.

Most of the mistakes we make in life are the same mistakes other people have been making for years. Inventors and innovators are no exception; they fail for the same reasons others have failed over the years. Pursuit of a non-viable invention or new product concept is a leading cause of invention/innovation failure. That is the reason WIN focuses on invention evaluation; but that is not our focus here.

IR Focus�

IR will focus on the commercial, or if you prefer, the industrial innovation process. This process starts with an idea, continues through research and development to market introduction and concludes when a product, process or service has run its course in the marketplace.

During our first year of publication, we will be paying particular attention to some of the common errors of omission and commission we have seen inventors make. We are not going to try to stimulate creativity or to plow new ground by making new discoveries. Do not expect to find any academic research or major breakthroughs. It is not that we do not appreciate research. More is needed if we are to build a theory of innovation. However, we agree with Peter Drucker (Innovation and Entrepreneurship, p. 34); we know enough to develop the practice of innovation, although our theory is still weak. Here we will focus on sound business practices and practical suggestions. It is not that we do not know how to innovate. To be sure, we have a lot to discover and learn, but this is not our primary problem. Most independent inventors fail because they do not follow the basic rules of the innovation process.

Jack Stack, a highly successful entrepreneur and author of the well-known book, The Great Game of Business, presents a very simple thesis that business is basically a game, and what one needs to do is learn the rules and play by them. The same thing can be said of the innovation process, even for those who do not intend to commercialize their own inventions. There are rules to this game as well. Those who learn these rules and play by them have a much better chance of attaining success.

The most economical way to stimulate innovation, or any other activity for that matter, is to borrow a concept from the Peace Corps, to “Feed a man a fish and he will eat today. Teach a man how to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime.” This is our basic strategy here. We hope to help inventors increase their level of understanding of the innovation process. Informed inventors make better decisions and avoid some of the classic mistakes. For example, the overwhelming majority of inventors taken in by invention promotion firms are inexperienced inventors at the idea stage of the innovation process. Those who have moved up the innovation process generally know better. In other words, they have learned to avoid this pitfall.

In a very real sense, breakthroughs are not as important to us as the basics. We are going to leave improving the industrial innovation process to others. Here, we are going to fall back on some of the basics, and work to get these across to inventors not familiar with the innovation process. This does not mean we are going to ignore research and study. From time to time we will report research findings in an effort to add to our understanding of the innovation process.

IR Publication Schedule. . . .

For the rest of this year we expect to publish one topic brief each month. We may do more if time allows. These briefs will cover a variety of topics, including the better mousetrap theory, a scorecard for rating invention promotion services, the inventor’s cultural gap, inventor’s common mistakes and corporate attitudes toward independent inventors, among others. Check our Table of Contents periodically for new topic briefs.

IR Format. . . .

Our format will be similar to that used here. We will start out with “A Thought on the Subject” and end with “The Last Word.” The author’s name will appear at the end of each topic brief. Throughout each brief you will find certain words highlighted in color and underlined. These are hot links for other topic briefs. To access them, all you need to do is click on the hot link. Of course, this doesn’t apply if you are reading a hard copy of this or any other brief, but these hot links will alert you to other topics briefed in the review. You will also find words/phrases underlined, but not highlighted. These are topics to be covered in future issues of IR.

IR Style. . . .

We hope IR will be of interest to a wide variety of readers, including independent (and corporate/institutional) inventors, entrepreneurs (innovators), policy makers, academics, students, and others interested in innovation. While published only in English, we hope IR will be helpful to readers worldwide.

Contributions to IR are encouraged. We use a double-blind review process for evaluating submissions. Submitted articles should be eight pages or less and should utilize the IR format. Authors should keep in mind that IR is not an academic journal and that our purpose is to inform our readers, rather than recount our research methodology or engage in extensive reviews of the literature. Research findings are welcomed, but move quickly to the bottom line.

IR Purpose. . . .

Our objective is to help produce better informed/educated inventors. As discussed earlier, we are not going to teach theory although good theory can be very useful. Instead, we will focus on practical suggestions and comments we have gleaned from experience as well as research findings and insights gained from studying the innovation process. We hope by sharing our experiences, and those of others, with inventors and innovators, they will be helpful to inventors. We are committed to the notion inventors are important to all of us. They are a significant source of innovation in the United States, and innovation is the engine that drives our economy.

The IR Copyright. . . .

IR is copyrighted for the purpose of keeping IR material out of the hands of invention promotion firms. We simply do not wish to provide them with a cloak of respectability by allowing them to distribute our materials. Permission to copy is granted to all SCORE chapters, SBDC sub-centers, and inventor organizations that are members of US-AIA. We would however, appreciate a note telling us how many copies were made so we can assess or readership. Others may contact WIN for permission to copy. Those wishing to reprint for commercial purposes should contact the copyright holder through WIN.

The Last Word. . . .

We hope you will benefit from reading IR. Innovation (in) Review is provided at no cost, so hard copy readers should not have to pay more than paper and copy costs. We hope you will gain new insights from reading future issues of the Innovation (in) Review.

Copyright © 2000 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC’s