AC 2012-3100: ENGINEERING INNOVATIVENESS
Mr. Daniel Michael Ferguson, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Daniel M. Ferguson is a graduate student in the Engineering Education program at Purdue University. He
received his B.A. in pre-engineering in a five-year B.A./B.S. program at the University of Notre Dameand a M.B.A. and M.S.I.E. from Stanford University. Prior to coming to Purdue, he was Assistant Professor of entrepreneurship at Ohio Northern University. Before assuming that position, he was Associate
Director of the Inter-professional Studies Program and Senior Lecturer at Illinois Institute of Technology
and involved in research in service learning, assessment processes, and interventions aimed at improving
learning objective attainment. Prior to his University assignments, he was the Founder and CEO of The
EDI Group, Ltd., and The EDI Group Canada, Ltd., independent professional services companies specializing in B2B electronic commerce and electronic data interchange. The EDI Group companies conductedmarket research, offered educational seminars and conferences, and published the Journal of Electronic
Commerce. He was also a Vice President at the First National Bank of Chicago, where he founded
and managed the bank’s market leading professional Cash Management Consulting Group, initiated thebank’s non-credit service product management organization and profit center profitability programs andwas instrumental in establishing the revolutionary EDI/EFT payment system implemented by General
Motors. He is a two-time award winner of the Best Paper in Cash Management awarded by the Bank
Administration Institute.
Mr. James Edwin Cawthorne Jr., Purdue University, West Lafayette
Mr. Benjamin Ahn, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Benjamin Ahn is a Ph.D. student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His
research interests relate to higher education reform, graduate teaching assistants’ roles in engineeringclasses, undergraduate engineering syllabus and curriculum development, and professional engineering
practices in universities and industries.
Dr. Matthew W. Ohland, Purdue University, West Lafayette
Matthew W. Ohland is Associate Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has degrees
from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His researchon the longitudinal study of engineering students, team assignment, peer evaluation, and active and collaborative teaching methods has been supported by more than $11.6 million from the National Science
Foundation and the Sloan Foundation, and his team received the William Elgin Wickenden Award for theBest Paper in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2008 and multiple conference Best Paper awards.
Ohland is Past Chair of ASEE’s Educational Research and Methods Division and an At-Large Member
the Administrative Committee of the IEEE Education Society. He was the 200206 President of Tau Beta
Pi.

Page 25.551.1

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012

ENGINEERING INNOVATIVENESS
Abstract
This paper explores engineering innovativeness. The data is drawn from a set of 8 interviews ofexperienced engineers and engineering educators. The research question is: “What set of intrinsic
abilities, when combined with extrinsic factors, enable engineers to create innovations that
benefit society? The six most important innovative behavior attributes of engineers suggested by
the interviewees were: domain knowledge, opportunity recognition, teamwork skills, thewillingness to listen to others strengthened by curiosity, risk taking or the willingness to risk
failure, and persistence. Creativity was seen as essential to jump start the innovation process but
clearly not sufficient for getting an idea successfully introduced into the marketplace.
Entrepreneurial behavior was also seen as a critical component of the innovation process but not
sufficient unto itself for creating a successful innovation. Innovation creation was seen as aprocess that can be taught, as knowledge that can be acquired or as skills that can bestrengthened. On the other hand there was a strong belief that some aspects of innovativeness are
based upon relatively fixed personality characteristics. Future plans include building on theseinterviews and creating and validating a new engineering innovativeness instrument based oncommunity-derived factors to benchmark and assess the development of engineering
innovativeness factors within engineering students and practicing engineers.

Page 25.551.2

Introduction
Leonardo daVinci is celebrated as one of the most creative people of all time. Thomas Edison iscredited with establishing entire industries. Steve Jobs is said to have revolutionized how we use
computers with the introduction of the Apple computers, the iPhone and the iPad. Society's
fascination with people who are innovative and make discoveries that improve our lives knows
little bounds. Even Presidents make calls for the innovations that come from the work of suchpeople.
"The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.”
President Barack Obama, January 25, 20111

Our research question is: “What set of intrinsic abilities (skills, knowledge, personality traits, or
attributes), when combined with extrinsic factors, enable engineers to create innovations that
benefit society?”
This paper discusses a qualitative research study set in an interpretivist framework which
explores engineering innovativeness. The data is drawn from a set of 8 interviews ofexperienced engineers and engineering educators, each with 30-40 years of industry,
entrepreneurial, and academic experience. The interviews were conducted in the summer of
2011. This study employs a grounded theory approach to produce a description of engineering
innovativeness, an ill-defined social construct, and those internal and external factors which
encourage or inhibit innovative behavior by engineers.
The purpose of this exploratory study is to inform a process to develop or adapt a measurement
instrument of engineering innovativeness or potential innovativeness so that innovativeness canbe benchmarked in student and professional engineers. A benchmark of engineer innovativenesswill enable tests of interventions that increase innovativeness attributes or skill sets in engineers,potentially benefiting society. If engineers become more innovative as a result of changes intheir behavior or the environments in which they learn, work and live, society stands to benefit
from an increase in their innovations. 2
Theoretical perspective

Page 25.551.3"The theoretical framework for this research is interpretivist because the skill sets forengineering innovativeness are viewed as a set of competencies (skills, knowledge, personality
traits, or attributes) with many possible winning combinations. Interpretivist approaches arefounded on the belief that reality is socially constructed and fluid 3. Thus, an interpretivist
approach presumes that what we know is always negotiated within cultures, social settings, andrelationships with other people. What is called an innovation or innovative behavior in one
culture may be interpreted differently in another culture." 2 In all cultures innovativeness isdefined as an ability where an individual utilizes their skills or competencies and produces
something new or novel that has value in that culture and is adopted, purchased or used.

References to relevant literature are included along with the assertion statements as opposed to a
separate literature section as the most logical place to include information which strengthens theassertions of the interviewees in this exploratory study.
Figures 1 is provided as a conceptual representation of the innovation space, a metaphoricalplace where individuals create innovations, each in their own way. The purpose of Figure 1 is toshow potential relationships between the concepts (ovals) used in conjunction with or defined by
the interviewees or in the literature as a part of engineer innovativeness: creative, problem
solving, design, and entrepreneurial behavior. Boxes in Figure 1 represent factors of personal orsocial influence on engineer innovativeness. Arrows in Figure 1 are hypothetical indications ofrelationships between factors or concepts where the direction of the arrow indicates a proposed
direction for influence between the innovativeness factors or concepts.2____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 1: Map of the Innovation Space
Research Questions
This exploratory qualitative study examines the phenomena of how and why engineers create
innovations that benefit society and is directed at answering two questions:
What is an innovation?

Page 25.551.4

What are the intrinsic or extrinsic human or societal factors that enable engineering
innovativeness or influence the ability of engineers to produce innovations?

Methodology
In this study structured interviews were conducted lasting 45-90 minutes. Open-ended questions
were used in the interviews and these questions are listed in Table 1. The actual questions
depended on the flow of the interview and covered the definition of an innovation, theidentification of attributes of innovative behavior, the relationship of innovative behavior toother types of behavior potentially related to innovative behavior, and an assessment of thecurrent state of engineering innovativeness.
Table 1.
Questions included in the guided interview on engineering innovativeness1. What is your definition of innovation?
2. What do you consider innovative behavior?
3. What do you feel is the most important personal trait that leads to innovation or
innovative behavior for an engineer?
4. How important do you feel creativity is to innovation ability?
5. How important do you feel design skills are to innovation ability?
6. What relationship do you see between problem solving skills and innovativeness?
7. Do you feel engineers are innovative? Why or why not?
8. Do you feel engineers can become more innovative?
9. How are innovative behavior and entrepreneurial behavior related?
10. Do you feel engineers can be/should be more entrepreneurial?

The interviews were open coded using an inductive analysis process that allows assertions,patterns, and ideas to emerge from the data 4. The interview questions were used as the initial
analysis structure for developing codes but the examination of the data resulted in data codes andthemes emerging that were not based on the initial question structure. The coding process wasrecursive and it involved all members of the research team in multiple rounds of coding, coding
reviews, strength testing, and the review of previous coding decisions. Within-interview analysis
of interview data was done and then cross-interview analysis of data was done, resulting in a
combining of data codes. Prototype assertions were tested based on strength of evidence andrevised to reflect the strongest evidence.5 The conventions used in quoting participants are as
follows: Statements by interviewees are presented in italics with quotations followed by theirpseudonym. Words in brackets were added by the researchers to clarify context.
Participants
Interviewees were identified as experts in innovation and entrepreneurship, selected as aconvenience sample and chosen for these criteria 5:
1. Over 20-30 years of combined innovation, academic, or entrepreneurial experience.
Page 25.551.5

2. Available for up to 90 minute interviews at the June, 2011 ASEE annual conference in
Vancouver, Canada or available for interviews in the Midwest in the summer or fall of
2011.
The sum of the total experience of the eight interviewees in the sample is over 250 years'
experience. Seven of the interviewees were male and one was female. Six of the eightinterviewees have PhD's, five in engineering disciplines, Seven of the eight have industry
experience, six of the eight have been entrepreneurs, seven of the eight have academic
experience in engineering colleges, and seven of the eight have engineering degrees. The
engineering degree fields include Acoustical, Biomedical, Civil, Electrical, and MechanicalEngineering.
Data Sources
Pre-interview questions: A description of the purpose and process of the research and the overall
research questions was emailed to each interviewee at least one week before the interview was
conducted.
Structured interviews: Face-to-face interviews were recorded and conducted in semipublic places
or in interviewee offices and the interview process was guided by the prepared questions about
engineering innovativeness and its relationship to creativity, design, problem solving, andentrepreneurial behaviors. Five interviews were conducted in Vancouver, Canada, two in Detroit,
Michigan and one in West Lafayette, Indiana. A second set of interviews with three of theinterviewees was conducted by phone. Only the first seven interviews are included in thisanalysis and none of the phone interview data is included. All interviewee data is anonymous andpseudonyms are used in the display of data.
Transcripts of interviews: Transcripts of the interview were prepared, edited to remove
identifying information and the edited interview transcript was shared with the interviewee forpossible redaction of data.
Researcher notes: Notes were prepared by the interviewer during and after the interview andused to help interpret the transcribed recording.
Secondary interviews: Three of the interviewees were interviewed by phone a second time laterin the summer of 2011 to discuss additional questions regarding the engineering innovation
process that emerged from initial analysis of the data and other activities of the research team.
This data is not included in this analysis.
Results and Findings
Assertion 1
Page 25.551.6

There was universal agreement among the interviewees that an innovation is a product, process
or concept that is new or novel, is valued, and is successfully introduced into a market or society.
A market is defined as a community of people who use the innovation. There was clear
understanding that an innovation is not a patent, that is, just a new idea even if it is truly uniqueand not obvious. There was also a clear mandate that an innovation must be brought to a market
or community that accepts or uses it in order to qualify as a true innovation that benefits society.
This definition of an innovation is consistent with those found in the literature.6-8
Among the research interviewees there was widespread agreement on the definition of an
innovation. Alfred captured the main thread of the innovation definition with the words new andvalue:“So, innovation is about new value. It’s some sort of new improvement. Innovation canalso meet a need. It creates value. It meets a need and it’s measurable.”-AlfredDavid emphasized the acceptance by the market as a key criterion of an innovation:“My definition of innovation is something that’s new and novel and ….very much alongwith the definition of a patent, the legal definition. But more importantly the new and novel
aspect of something innovative being new and novel is that the market, in fact, determines
if it’s innovative or not.” To develop something new and novel that’s accepted by themarket is my definition of innovation…it’s not innovative by my definition if it’s notbrought to the market and the market accepts it.”-David
Bruce and Carl added reinforcement to the idea that an idea is developed and must be acceptedby a customer (community) or market to actually become an innovation:“I now use the term innovation to mean development of products and services, that’s how
we use innovation, on providing value to the customer by the development of this new
product or service.”-Bruce“But innovation has a level of something that has value to society, a value that caneventually be translated to something meaningful to society either to the handicapped, or to
the third world, or to the market or whatever, some kind of added value.”-Carl
Frank clarified the definition of new, referring to the US Patent Office (US PTO), to mean thatnew means an idea that is not an obvious extension of an idea that already exists in a market:“And non-obvious is I guess the US PTO’s definition. The non-obvious one is sometimes
hard to argue but once you see LED lighting mature, become inexpensive, become useful
wave lengths, high intensity etc. replacing a flashlight incandescent bulb. A halogen lightbulb with an LED may be new it may be useful but it’s, in my opinion, obvious. If I had topick two words that summarize innovation it’s invention plus commercialization.”-Frank
Page 25.551.7

Edward also reinforced the definition of an innovation and added that it includes concepts notjust products and that innovation can be bringing together two or more ideas into something new
and not obvious but the ultimate test for an innovation is that it ends up benefiting people:“It’s bringing two or more ideas together in a way that no one has thought about before or
they’re not obvious associations, the product of which (association) benefits people. It isn’t
necessarily a product. You could have an innovative film. You could have an innovative
text book. You could have innovative products that benefit people. It isn’t necessarily aninvention. It’s a new idea that didn’t exist prior to that bringing together of two or morethings. Well I want to make the distinction. It’s different than an invention and so the thingthat people miss is that it isn’t an idea that is in my head. It ends up benefiting people. It
has to get into the market place. “-Edward
Assertion 2
Engineering innnovativeness includes multiple competencies, skills, and attributes.
Innovativeness is used interchangeably with innovative behavior in our discussion. The six mostimportant innovative behavior attributes of engineers identified by the interviewees were domain
knowledge, opportunity recognition, teamwork skills, the willingness to listen to others
strengthened by curiosity, risk taking or the willingness to risk failure, and persistence. Severalof these same intrinsic characteristics are cited in the literature on creativity.9, 10 Other
engineering innovativeness attributes were mentioned in the interviews but not by more than twoof the interviewees.
Domain knowledge is often the first identified engineering innovativeness trait and it is viewed
as a precondition for innovativeness. Domain knowledge includes technical competence as wellas market understanding. Domain knowledge is cited by many researchers as a precursor ofinnovative results. 11-13 Market awareness is also emphasized as critical to innovative behavior .
14, 15
Bruce makes such knowledge a starting point for innovative behavior:“As a whole they (innovators) need a sound understanding of the technology, at least an
appreciation of technology or a deep trusting relationship with those who do. The ones I
deal with are really the ones with the knowledge base. Understanding the market, afocused market understanding, a profound understanding of your limited focus market
and an appreciation for the power of the strategic use of intellectual property can give
you in the commercialization of that technology.”-Bruce
Alfred makes technical knowledge a starting point and Edward gives examples of why technicalknowledge is only the starting point for innovative behavior.
“He (the innovator) takes his technical competence and uses it to build relationships withpeople to help them solve problems.”-Alfred
Page 25.551.8“It’s a mistake to set up a young person to think they can run a business when they
graduate from school, as with a bachelors (degree), because they know nothing aboutsupply-chain management, distribution networks, American Disabilities Act. And so you
need to learn business. Would you like a young person to design a heart/lung machine tosupport life during open heart surgery as a new graduate? They can be smart, right?
(but) you have to know a lot of things not just about the technology.”-Edward
David feels that domain knowledge is a clear differentiator when identifying innovative potential
in a person:“I classify them as innovative even though they may not classify themselves (that way)
because often they see the world differently. They are technically knowledgeable, market
knowledgeable to the point where they can see what’s being done and how to improveit.”-David
Opportunity recognition is seen as a skill accompanying domain knowledge and as a key skill of
an innovator. Alfred makes opportunity recognition a required innovativeness characteristic:“There has to be a mindset that looks for opportunity and is willing to engage humanbeings in some setting whether it’s a market place or government agency and thismindset is opportunity seeking not just problem solving.”-AlfredDavid and Frank see opportunity recognition as an ability to synthesize, see across domains andan attribute that only particular individuals possess:“It’s a synthesis. It’s a skill or ability. It’s (an) understanding that one event or one
problem or one technology can in fact be applied across multiple opportunities and thatmindset allows innovative people to bring things together to synthesize.”-David“There are those who synthesize, who are able to connect dots, to be able to see how this,
this and this connects to the other to solve a problem that is an opportunity for them. A
lot of people have an innate ability to see how things connect.”-Frank
Edward makes the point that the opportunity connections made by the innovator can be to ideas
which are completely new or new to the domain:“I’m going to say (innovators need to have) empathy and compassion. They have to beable to see a need. (To see) something doesn’t exist that could exist.”-EdwardFrank sees it as a decision model where an innovator is continually mapping economic needs andeconomic investments to identify market opportunities:

Page 25.551.9“He just sees problems (and) is immediately trying to map the economic potential ofsolving that problem with the economic investment it would take at an estimated level tocome up with a solution to that problem as to what he even works on.”-FrankTeamwork skills and building and supporting relationships with a team of people that support theinnovative process is viewed as a necessary skill of an innovator and seen as contrary to the
popular myth of the lone wolf inventor-genius. David sets out the teamwork requirement andmaintains that, while some individual people take credit for innovations, innovation is almost
always the result of a team effort:“So what I tried to do is put it in this context of idea to market and you need to be bothinnovative and creative through all those processes. Often it’s not an individual trait. It’sa team trait because it’s rather complex and it’s hard. I like the whole idea of an
innovative and creative team. What is the greatest opportunity for economic
development? It’s often done by a team, rarely done by individuals. Rarely, and in thiscontext at this time and at this date, some people may take credit for it but it was hardly
ever an individual. I call it the myth of the rugged individual. It’s a total myth. It’s
folklore, everything from Thomas Edison to John Wayne. It’s folklore.”-DavidFrank adds that we tend as a society to popularize the myth of the lone innovator and not see therequirement for a team player:“I think one that’s often overlooked is a good innovator is a strong team player. I think
we tend to stereotype and pigeon hole a lot of innovators as the few great war-story
people that we know about, like a Steve Jobs or the Wright Brothers.”-Frank
Alfred explains that building a team to support innovation is a process involving everyone in theteam that supports the innovator:“And (the innovator) forms a team and that team is both vertical and horizontal and theteam could be better called a network because it’s a collection of people and resources.
So there’s human capital, organizational capital and cultural or civic capital. And thisteam is both vertically and horizontally integrated into these systems and it has thiscapital and it’s combined with this reference on the marketplace creating value. (It’s)
opportunity seeking. So it’s not just the sea level people. They cascade this mindset down
all the way to the grass roots level of the organization. So their vision, their mission andtheir goals are clearly articulated. I mean everybody knows what it is that they do thatworks in the organization and they have a service mindset.”-Alfred
The willingness to listen to others strengthened by curiosity and share ideas are traits ofinnovativeness that stand out in an innovative engineer. Frank is very firm in his description of
an innovative person - an innovative person is someone who listens to the ideas of others:

Page 25.551.10“I want someone (as an innovator) who’s listening to what everyone else is saying andalways asking ‘How can I add value to that?’ and above and beyond that ‘How can I
make it better?’ ‘How can I use the strengths in their ideas to improve the weaknesses in
the ideas I was putting forward myself?’ And that’s a hard skill to teach. You cancertainly encourage it. You can recognize it and you can tell people you want it but myexperience has been people’s natural behavior is one way or the other.”-FrankCarl is also strong in his description of the listening skills of innovative persons:“They always listened to people and regardless of the rank. They didn’t say “I’m goingto listen only to my boss because he’s my boss. They listened to anyone at all. They
always took time to listen, always. There was no such thing like, ‘I don’t have time rightnow. The attitude was I want to listen to you because I can get some kind of value. They
were less talker and more listener.”-Carl
George maintains that inquisitiveness or curiosity is at the heart of the reason for listening toothers:“I think a part of innovation is life’s experiences, what someone has really done in their
lifetime, what kinds of experiences they’ve had. (Innovation happens) if in fact their mindor their thinking is open to the point where they are inquisitive. They want to know. They
want to know more. Or they’ve had a personal experience in their life that has been
puzzling and they just don’t have a solution for it and they want to be able to find it.”George
Risk taking or the willingness to risk failure is an attribute of an innovative engineer but not an
attribute that is found in abundance among practicing engineers. Frank makes the point thatorganizations tend to punish and not reward failure, decreasing the motivation of engineers to beinnovative:“A willingness to tolerate failure was another big one. A lot of practicing engineers havea tough time with this. If you fail in the auto industry and your parts get recalled, yourcareer is like done. You’re the guy that got labeled with the ball joint that fell apartbecause…. That’s a great one. Where I’m coming from is engineers generally don’t like
failure at all so they’re not comfortable (with risk). You’re going to generate 100 ideas,
99 of which are going to be bad.”-Frank
George describes a specific person whom he believes is innovative as someone who experiments
and can tolerate failure:He’s a Russian scientist and he’s done some very neat things in terms of invention. .He
has many patents and is a highly innovative person. He tries. He does experiments.
Some of these things fail. Some of these things succeed. He’s a wonderful professional
engineer. He has a passion for invention. -George
Page 25.551.11

Edward suggests that innovative persons are not rule followers, status quo kind of people:

“They aren’t rule followers. You can’t be innovative and be a rule follower, because
you’re breaking the rules by definition. That doesn’t mean you’re not law-abiding. It
doesn’t mean that you don’t use common sense or use formulas but you’re not a statusquo kind of person.”-Edward

Persistence in the face of lack of support or failure is considered an essential characteristic ofinnovators. Edward explains the need to persevere in the face of people or organizational
resistance to your idea and ties this attribute to personal courage:“They have to have courage because when I worked in industry I was told by a generalmanager, “With your new product ideas you’re going to have 10 executive vicepresidents give you 3 reasons each why your idea’s not good. You know, because, themarket doesn’t need it, it’s too expensive, we’ve tried that before, da da da da da
da…You’re going to have to just swim upstream and take the personal risk to push foryour idea because if your idea was obvious someone would have already done it.“Edward
Carl suggests that taking ownership of the idea is an important part of being able to persist inpushing or promoting the idea:“They (innovators) trust experts to a point but they (innovators) need to be convinced
100% so they become the experts. They have to be able to say ‘I defend this idea because
of 1, 2, 3 and 4, not because the expert told me. The expert can tell you anything theywant but you are the decision maker and it’s completely up to you. You are the boss. It’s
your signature is at the end of the day, not the expert’s signature. You sign on everything
and it’s your responsibility.”-Carl
Edward and Frank also connect persistence to the willingness to fail:“I don’t know how to describe that as a trait but there’s a prescience, there’s courage,
there’s persistence, a self- confidence that you don’t fear failure.”-Edward“A willingness to tolerate failure was another big one.”-Frank
Assertion 3

Page 25.551.12

A social community supports and enables or inhibits innovative behavior. A team is one type ofsocial community. There was strong agreement that the ability to work in and with teams was anecessary ingredient for successful innovative behavior. A social climate that suppresses
innovation in the form of lack of tolerance of failure or willingness to take risks was also judged
to be a significant factor in inhibiting innovative behavior. These observations are consistent
with the research of Edward de Bono on how to facilitate team creativity.16

David asserts that a team or social community can support innovative behavior:“Often, (innovative behavior), it’s not an individual trait. It’s a team trait because it’srather complex and it’s hard. I like the whole idea of an innovative and creative teamand, again, what is the greatest opportunity for economic development? It’s often done
by a team, rarely done by individuals. Rarely, and in this context at this time and at thisdate some people may take credit for it but it was hardly ever (done by) an individual. I
call it the myth of the rugged individual. It’s a total myth. It’s folklore. Everything from
Thomas Edison to John Wayne. it’s folklore.”-David
Edward explains how individuals can inhibit rather than support innovative behavior:“I’ve been in business units where the leader of the business unit typically has thearrogant lens and you can’t be innovative, you cannot be innovative as an employee, youwill not take a chance. You’ll keep your head low.”-Edward
Carl describes innovators as positive individuals, who listen and who are supportive of ideas,
which stimulates and supports their own innovative behavior:“They (innovators) were, first of all, very open-minded. You can talk to them about
anything, even if you criticize them, they don’t care. They just listen to the criticism. They
took the essence without hard feelings and tried to see what good can come out of it.
They looked at the good part of everything. They looked at the world in a very positive
way. Improvisation was part of them. Having fun was part of them. Thinking all the time
was part of them. Taking risks is part of them. They treated people very well. They
always listened to people. They listened to anyone at all. They always took time to listen.
Always. They were less talker and more listener.”-Carl
Assertion 4
Innovative behavior involves both creative and entrepreneurial behaviors. Creativity is seen as
essential to jump start the innovation process but clearly not enough to get an idea successfully
introduced into the marketplace. Entrepreneurial behavior is also seen as a critical component of
the innovation process but not sufficient unto itself for creating a successful innovation.
Marrying creativity and entrepreneurial behavior in order to create innovations and new
businesses is a theme found in entrepreneurship literature. 17
Bruce positions creativity as a part of the innovation process:“(Being) Innovative is developing new products and services. You can be creative indoing that. You can be creative in your approach to it. If innovation is developing new
products and services, creativity is the process of how you get there.”-Bruce
Page 25.551.13

Carl positions creativity as a necessary element to being innovative but states that being
innovative adds value to society beyond being creative:

"Creativity itself has an element, maybe unfairly so, of a child drawing something or achild putting together something. It’s unfair. It’s an unfair treatment of creativity. But
innovation has a level of something that has value to society, a value that can betranslated to something meaningful to society either to the handicapped, or to the third
world, or to the market or whatever, some kind of added value.”-Carl
Edward clarifies the relationship of creativity to innovation suggesting that creativity isnecessary to innovative behavior but that innovative behavior is more just than creative behavior
or entrepreneurial behavior:"So again (innovativeness) is creativity in some respects …I think (creativity) is probably
a necessary attribute but it’s not sufficient to be innovative and to be innovative it’snecessary but not sufficient to be entrepreneurial."-Edward
Alfred differentiates entrepreneurial behavior from innovative behavior and argues that you canbe entrepreneurial without actually being innovative and he argues that innovative engineers go
beyond problem solving:“Being entrepreneurial is more than being innovative, it’s different than being
innovative. You can be entrepreneurial and not be very innovative, create value and solve
problems or fill unmet needs. It’s more opportunity orientation than problem solving.
See that’s the cusp between an entrepreneurially minded engineer and an engineer. An
engineer wants to solve a problem. An entrepreneurially innovative engineer is seeking
opportunities to be innovative not (just) to solve a problem.”-Alfred
George supports Alfred’s position as he asserts that not all creative people (and given the context
of the question, engineers) are innovative.
“I think creativity is a part of the innovation process but in some instances creative
people are not always innovative, meaning they may create something that might notnecessarily relate to improving or enhancing functionality.”-George
Assertion 5
There was a belief that engineering innovativeness can be taught or developed. Innovation
creation was seen by some interviewees as a process that can be taught, knowledge that can beacquired or skills that can be strengthened. Innovativeness was seen by some as a hill that aperson can climb as they master the process, gain the knowledge and practice the skills of an
innovative person. This belief is echoed in the innovation literature.18
George makes the case that innovative behavior can be taught because he believes it is a processthat can be replicated:
Page 25.551.14“I think of innovation as being a process that can be easily replicated, that can be taught,that is a method of really thinking differently, looking at enhancing, improving ordeveloping a different way of doing things, that in some way enhances the overall

functionality of a product or process. It really is, in a sense, a breakthrough that requires
more of a structured approach of looking at problems.”-George
Bruce explains that innovative behavior depends on understanding technology, customers andmarkets and that this type of knowledge can be taught:“We can make anybody, let’s talk about those that have the background in technology,
better innovators. And I think the characteristics you’re looking for are the ability tounderstand that the technology’s not everything. Understanding that market, youunderstand that the reason someone buys my product is to solve their problems which
would drive you, by the way, to understand (that) I’ve got to understand their problems.
I’ve got to know more and anticipate more what their needs are than they do.”-Bruce
Carl argues that being innovative can be taught to people who are initially less innovative:“Let’s say I measured you and you are the 99th percentile of being innovative, fantastic.
But what about those who are (in the) 80th or 40th percentile of being innovative, what
we can do about them? Is it possible to change? We believe it‘s possible to make people
both more creative and more innovative. We do believe so.”-Carl
Edward strongly asserts that both innovative and entrepreneurial behavior can be taught:“Well, the common question is ‘Nature or nurture?’ Can you teach entrepreneurism?
Absolutely. Can you make somebody more creative, innovative? Absolutely.”-Edward
Assertion 6
There was a strong belief that some aspects of innovativeness are based upon personality
characteristics which resulted in a belief that some engineers are more innovative while otherengineers are less innovative. This belief is shared by other researchers. 19-21
David sees engineers as two types of people, those who break the world into manageable chunks
and those who synthesize and connect the dots to innovate and create opportunities:“A lot of people that I deal with on a regular basis differentiate and I think the(engineering) world can be classified into those who see the world and try and break it
down into manageable chunks and are happy understanding those manageable chunks orother parts of it. Then there are those who synthesize, who are able to connect dots, to beable to see how this, this and this connects to the other to solve a problem that is an
opportunity for them.”-DavidFrank sees how engineers work within a team and with team members as the differentiating
innovative behavior characteristic:
Page 25.551.15“When I watch engineers either practicing or in the classroom setting, to me, the mostimportant emergent behavior is how they approach the team thought processes. If youget somebody who’s just ‘Give me your tablet. I’ve got an idea. I’m going to cover it up
while I sketch it and then here it is. This is as good as gold. What are you guys thinking
over there, you’re idiots. They may be very smart and they even do very well in the
traditional academic environment of test taking and straight analysis. I don’t want themon my team, innovating. I want someone who’s listening to what everyone else is saying
and always asking ‘How can I add value to that?’ and above and beyond that ‘How can I
make it better?’ ‘How can I use the strengths in their ideas to improve the weaknesses in
the ideas I was putting forward myself?’ And that’s a hard skill to teach. You cancertainly encourage it. You can recognize it and you can tell people you want it but myexperience has been (that) people’s natural behavior is one way or the other.”-Frank
Edward differentiates innovators as rule breakers not rule followers:“They aren’t rule followers. You can’t be innovative and be a rule follower, because
you’re breaking the rules by definition.”-Edward
Summary of Assertions
There was universal agreement among the interviewees that an innovation is a product, process
or concept that is new or novel, is valued, and is successfully introduced into a market or society.
The six most important innovative behavior attributes of engineers identified by the interviewees
were domain knowledge, opportunity recognition, teamwork skills, the willingness to listen toothers strengthened by curiosity, risk taking or the willingness to risk failure, and persistence.
There was strong agreement that the ability to work in and with teams was a necessary ingredientfor successful innovative behavior. A social climate that suppresses innovation due to lack oftolerance of failure or unwillingness to take risks was also judged to be a significant factor ininhibiting innovative behavior. Creativity was seen as essential to jump start the innovation
process but clearly not sufficient for getting an idea successfully introduced into the marketplace.
Entrepreneurial behavior was also seen as a critical component of the innovation process but not
sufficient unto itself for creating a successful innovation.
Innovation creation was seen by some interviewees as a process that can be taught, knowledge
that can be acquired or skills that can be strengthened. Innovativeness was seen by some as a hillthat a person can climb as they master the process, gain the knowledge and practice the skills of
an innovative person. On the other hand there was a strong belief that some aspects ofinnovativeness are based upon personality characteristics suggesting that some engineers are
more innovative while other engineers are less innovative. Table 2 summarizes the assertion
statements.
Table 2: List of Assertions
Page 25.551.16

Assertion 1: An innovation is a product, process or concept that is new or novel, isvalued, and is successfully introduced into a market or society.

Assertion 2: Engineering innnovativeness behavior includes multiple attributes, skills,
and competencies.
Assertion 3: A social community supports and enables or inhibits innovative behavior. A
team is one type of social community.
Assertion 4: Innovative behavior involves both creative and entrepreneurial behaviors.
Assertion 5: There was a belief that engineering innovativeness competencies can betaught or developed.
Assertion 6: Some engineers are more innovative while other engineers are lessinnovative.
Limitations of the data
This initial analysis of engineering innovativeness is limited due to potential interviewer
bias (all interviewees were previously known to the interviewer) and the convenience
construction of the sample. A larger sample may be more representative of the engineering
population. No subgroup analysis was performed. No interviews were done outside ofengineering professionals or experienced entrepreneurs for a comparator sample.
Future work
Future research will expand the scope of the sample and identify the key factors ofengineering innovativeness. Additional interviews will be conducted including comparator
interviews. Subgroups, including ethnic or gender groups or disciplines, will be examined todetermine whether there are differences in the skills or attributes of innovativeness within those
subgroups. These interviews will add to the weight of evidence that establishes the core set ofinnovative skills and help determine whether those skills vary in any significant way across the
subgroups or across engineering disciplines.
We plan to create and validate a new instrument based on community-derived factors toassess the development of these factors within engineering students and practicing engineers. It
is our premise that there is no single “ideal” profile of innovativeness that leads to success.
Instead, we expect to find diverse profiles (i.e., different combinations and degrees of the key
innovativeness factors) that vary by individual, by context, and by discipline – all of which canlead to success within the right environment.

Page 25.551.17

With our new, validated instrument in hand, engineering educators will be able to give
feedback to each student about his/her unique “brand” of innovative potential and manifest
ability, and then guide students in the appropriate directions to gain the additional knowledge
and skills they each need (uniquely) to succeed innovatively. With global competition reaching
new heights, we cannot afford to marginalize the contributions of any individual within theinnovation process – making a better understanding of innovativeness, its diversity, and its
development a critical need.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

Obama, B. (Office of the President of the United States, Washington, D.C., 2011).
Ferguson, D.M. & Ohland, M. What is Engineering Innovativeness? International Journal of Engineering
Education in press (2011).
Cohen, D. & Crabtree, B. (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ 08543, 2008).
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing groundedtheory (2nd ed.) (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1998).
Patton, M.Q. (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002).
Ferrari, A., Cachia, R. & Punie, Y. Innovation and Creativity in Education and Training in the EU Member
States: Fostering Creative Learning and Supporting Innovative Teaching. European Commission Joint
Research Centre (2009).
OECD. New Zealand OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy (2007).
OECD. (2008).
Sternberg, R.J. Creativity or creativities? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63, 370-82(2005).
Torrance, E.P. The Beyonders in a Thirty Year Longitudinal Study of Creative Achievement. . (1993).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (Harper Perennial,
New York, NY, 1996).
Hargadon, A. How Breakthroughs Happen (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 2003).
Peña, I. Intellectual capital and business start-up success. Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol. 3 pp.180 198 (2002 ).
Andersen, O.J. A Bottom-Up Perspective on Innovations: Mobilizing Knowledge and Social CapitalThrough Innovative Processes of Bricolage. Administration & Society 40, 57-78 (2008).
Oosterbeek, H. The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation.
European Economic Review 54, 442-454 (2010).
Edward, d.B. Ideas about thinking: Excerpts from Edward de Bono's “letter to thinkers”. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 3, 57-62 (1986).
Ames, M. & Runco, M.A. Predicting Entrepreneurship From Ideation and Divergent Thinking. Creativity& Innovation Management 14, 311-315 (2005).
Bollfrass, C. Designing innovative engineers. Hart's E&P 81, 94 (2008).
Dweck, C.S. Mindset:The New Psychology of Success (Ballentine Books, New York, 2006).
Cheng, Y.L. Comparisons of Creative Styles and Personality Types Between American and TaiwaneseCollege Students and the Relationship Between Creative Potential and Personality Types. PSYCHOLOGY
OF AESTHETICS CREATIVITY AND THE ARTS 4, 103-112 (2010).
Kirton, M. in KAI (eds. Brown, L.L. & Brown, R.) (Occupational Research Centre, Highlands, Gravel
Path, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 2PQ, United Kingdom, 1976).

Page 25.551.18