Report to the National Academy of Sciences
Washington D.C.
History, Learning & Plans for the Future
December 20, 2013
Version .7
Authored by Doug Hall with assistance from
the Innovation Engineering Institute team
at the University of Maine and Eureka! Ranch
Contact:
doug.hall@maine.edu
(513) 310-6374
Page 1
Table of Contents
The Problem …………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Innovation Engineering Overview .………………………………………………………………….... 4
What Makes Innovation Engineering Meaningfully Unique? .…………………………………......... 5
Innovation Engineering History .………………………………………………………...…………… 6
Change Model for the Movement ...…………………………………………………..……………… 7
Innovation Engineering Organizational Structure ..……..……………..……………………….........
8
Innovation Engineering Findings: Culture Change Processes …………………….…………..…….
9
Enabling & Educating Innovation Change Agents …………………………………………....……..
12
College, University, and K-12 Academic Programs ..………………………………………...……...
13
Small & Mid Sized Enterprise (SME) Company Offerings .……………………...……………...….. 14
Large Company, College & Government Department Offerings .……………………...…………..
15
Commercial & Government Licensing Options …………………….………………………...……… 16
The Beginning of Awareness Building for Innovation Engineering ……………………….....……… 17
Innovation Engineering Metrics & Measurements …………………………………………...……… 18
Research & Development Priorities ………………………...………….……………………...……… 19
Attachments
Attachment I:Cycles to Mastery ……………...………….…………………..…...……....... 21
Attachment II: The 48 Innovation Engineering Skills .…...………..……………...……..… 23
Attachment III: The Reason for Optimism .…...……………………..…………..…............. 24
Attachment IV: The Success Stories .…...………..………………………………....……… 26
Attachment V: The Many Ways The Transformation
to an Innovation Mindset is Utilized …………………………………………….…………. 27
Attachment VI: Contributing Research .…...………..…………………….………....……… 31
Page 2
The Problem
The Need for Innovation
To be successful in the rapidly changing world of the 21st century, many have argued that a sustainable and cost-effective
innovation strategy is essential to the survival and prosperity of every kind of organization.
“The National Academies Gathering Storm committee concluded that a primary driver of the future economy and
concomitant creation of jobs will be innovation, largely derived from advances in science and engineering.” the report
went on to say “a nation that does not embrace innovation will soon be left behind in the 21st century economy.”
To say it more bluntly, in today’s global economy “if you’re not meaningfully unique, you better be cheap.”
Innovation allows companies to restart the business lifecycle. Is is one of the
most effective methods for restarting profitability. Innovation allows companies
to escape from the death spiral of offerings that are not unique and thus are
subject to commodity pricing pressures. To quantify it - Georgia Tech has found
in two surveys of companies that those who follow a strategy of innovation
realize nearly double the net profit margin of those who pursue low cost.
The Need for A System of Innovation
Having a reliable system for innovation is the foundation of successful
innovation. This is a broadly accepted truth for large companies and is well
documented in the new product literature. Surveys indicate that 70% plus of
large companies have a system for innovation however it’s estimated that less than
15% of small and mid sized companies do. Interestingly, it’s not that small companies are against systems; in fact, they often
have systems for accounting, production, customer service but not innovation and growth. However, they’ve not been taught
a system for innovation. And, there has never been a system for innovation optimized for small companies.
Research by the Innovation Engineering Institute team confirms that having a system for innovation is also the most
important factor for innovation success within small and mid sized companies. The measure of innovation used was the
companies net profit margin versus it’s peer group. Regression analysis of survey responses from company leaders found
that those companies with higher net margins (more meaningfully unique offerings) had1) a system for innovation and 2) a
more proactive mindset. Review of standardized coefficients found that the system of innovation was over twice as
important of the two.
The need for a system is even more important in today’s economy. The internet enables change to diffuse significantly faster.
Before the internet, life cycles were longer. Innovation could be a more “occasional” event. To thrive profitably in today’s
economy organizations must develop a culture of never ending innovation.
The CEO Problem - Increasing Innovation Speed and Decreasing Risk
Research among those company leaders finds that they understand the value of innovation. However, emotionally they don’t
have the confidence to lead it (they don’t have a system - and have never been taught how to do it) and rationally they are
concerned that innovation takes a long time and is very risky.
The purpose of Innovation Engineering is to help individuals reignite cultures of innovation within their organizations by
transforming the mindset of both the leadership and the workforce. Specifically the system is focused on helping increase
innovation speed and decrease innovation risk. Quantitative studies find that it can increase innovation speed up to a factor
of 6 and decrease risk by 30 to 80%. The Innovation Engineering system is able to increase speed and decrease risk because it
approaches the “total system” of innovation with a scientific mindset. This approach applies the systems theory of Dr. W.
Edwards Deming, Dr. Russell Ackoff and others to the challenge of innovation. By studying, measuring and researching the
entire system using classic Plan, Do, Study, Act Deming Cycles (a.k.a. Shewhart cycles) major improvements in increasing
speed and reducing risk are realized.
Page 3
Innovation Engineering Overview
Purpose: The purpose of Innovation Engineering is to help individuals reignite cultures of innovation within their organizations by
transforming the mindset of both the leadership and the workforce. This is accomplished by educating and enabling innovation change
agents – leaders and managers of the both current and future workforces - in the Innovation Engineering system.
What it is: Innovation Engineering is a new field of academic study and industrial practice based on a body of knowledge comprised of 48
skills. It is a multi-disciplinary field blending the humanities, engineering, business, and patent law. The program is lead by the Innovation
Engineering Institute, an alliance between the Eureka! Ranch and the University of Maine.
Results & Reason for Optimism: We recognize that it will take time to create the transformation of mindset required to flip companies,
colleges, and countries from a culture of “reactive” cost cutting to one of “proactive” technology and driven profitability. We also
recognize that we are just starting the journey and have had a number of “firsts” in the past twenty years. The first quantitative research
project to turn innovation from an art into a science was conducted in 1991. During the fall 2005 semester, the University of Maine taught
the first Innovation Engineering course. Four years later, the first Innovation Engineering course was taught at additional colleges and
universities. The first Innovation Engineering Leadership Institute, a three-day executive education program for companies, was in January
2010. Finally, the first Innovation Engineering Black Belt certification was held during the summer of 2011. Over the past two decades, all
of these “firsts” have led us down a path of creating a program designed to reignite a culture of innovation.
Innovation Engineering is a new field of study and there is much to learn. With that being said, data from the past few years gives us reason
for optimism. Our primary metric for evaluating effectiveness is the valuation of the projects, both generated and in process, within the
innovation pipeline. Pipeline valuation is used because, as the Journal of Product Innovation Management and others report, it takes an
average of 24 months for an innovation that represents a 50% change versus existing offerings to go from development to launch. The total
timeline from idea discovery to one year of sales increases timing to 3.5 years.
The Innovation Engineering movement has the advantage of real time data and marketplace feedback that has never before been available
for academic review. The Innovation Engineering Labs online portal data pertaining to the innovation pipeline includes documentation of:
customer, problem, benefit promise, product/service proof, the sales forecast (with documentation of assumptions), key death threats and
learning plans. Analysis of current data from IELabs.com gives us reason for optimism for the Innovation Engineering field of study.
Innovation Engineering has helped accelerate $4.1 Billion worth of ideas into Innovation Pipelines for Companies
This data is from client projects in Innovation Engineering Labs.com This represents approximately 70,000 jobs based on a model
developed by the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness from US MEA, US Economic Census and Economic Modeling
Specialists Inc. Most importantly, according to research by Georgia Tech University, innovation driven jobs are value-added, paying up
to 50% more per employee.
250% Improvement in Innovation Success Curve
The most encouraging data on improvement is that which we are seeing in the “innovation success curve.” Stevens and Burley
detailed in Research and Technology Management the benchmarks for current industry. Comparing these benchmarks against the
project distribution in Innovation Engineering Labs we find a 250% improvement in the development success rate with the Innovation
Engineering system. This is consistent with the 300% improvement predicted by Robert Cooper of McMaster University, when there is
clarity of the innovation before the start of development – which is exactly what Innovation Engineering is designed to do.
15,000+ Managers Taught & 70,000 Engagements Each Month via IELabs.com:
Over 1,500 companies and 15,000 managers have been educated in all or part of the Innovation Engineering system. Among the core
community of Innovation Engineering Black Belts (350+), over 10,000 times a year they are helping each other through the Innovation
Engineering Labs request platform and Black Belt blog. Collectively, the IELabs.com website gets 70,000 page views a month by IE
Black Belts and innovation project teams.
The Innovation Challenge & Opportunity
A survey of 7,000+ company leaders found that 85% spent their time primarily on “reactive” actions and only 15% were proactive focused
on innovation. Innovation Engineering surveys find that companies that are proactive in orientation are significantly more successful.
Proactive
Innovators
84%
96%
63%
Sales Growth past 3 years
Profit Margin Growth past 3 years
Employee Growth past 3 years
Page 4
Reactive
Cost Cutters
4%
13%
1%
What Makes Innovation Engineering Meaningfully Unique?
Innovation Engineering is the first and only innovation system to be grounded in factual “total system” data gathered during
live projects and subjected to statistical analysis. The body of knowledge and its corresponding curriculum brings academic
discipline and rigor to the innovation process.
What makes the data particularly valuable is that it comes from real companies working on real innovations. And, the data is
never ending. Unlike most academic fields of study that have extremely long feedback loops, the Innovation Engineering
network of participating companies and Innovation Engineering Black Belt coaches provides real time feedback and
additional data on the results of “Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP” experiments.
Most importantly, the research is ongoing at the speed of industry. Open innovation collaborations, licensing, purchasing or
partnering on development tools is the norm not the exception. Because the Eureka! Ranch is among the oldest high-end
innovation firms under the same ownership and leadership - the company leaders have a good level of trust among the
professional innovation community. This means the movement has been able to efficiently partner with the true innovation
thought leaders like Dr. Van Gundy, Hermann International, Tony Buzan and AC Nielsen BASES. As a further example,
organizations where the Ranch founder has lectured include: MIT Leadership Program, Harvard Business School, Darden
School, University of Chicago, The UK Marketing Society and the University of Oregon.
The Innovation Engineering R&D team embraces an “engineering mindset” with all research. Specifically, we focus on
measuring and problem solving “real world” challenges. That’s not to say we don’t continuously mine academic journals.
However, our priority is on discovery of better methods. By choice we “do as we teach” and focus more attention on filing
patents on Innovation Engineering discoveries than on academic publishing.
Over a period of 20 years, with the help of 3 PhD’s and 3 statisticians, the team has analyzed concept testing and or sales
forecasting data on over 26,000 innovations. This data has enabled never ending cycles of learning - 1) Content Analysis to
identify statistical differences of winners versus losers followed by 2) Education programs to increase “odds of success”
followed by 3) New concepts developed and tested to confirm or disconfirm the guiding principles. Finally, the entire
process is repeated and repeated endlessly. As a result of the learning - today it is possible to reliably generate ideas with a
50%+ odds of sustained marketplace success. Note: this compares with the reported 5% to 29% odds of success seen with
innovations from multi-national companies.
Even more important than the data on what drives winners and losers - is the total system data on thousands of people and
cultures. Because this data includes detailed information on the individuals, the teams, the projects over time - it provides a
unique opportunity to identify methods for creating a culture of never ending innovation with increased speed and decreased
risk.
Page 5
Innovation Engineering History
Innovation Engineering as a movement is only three years old. However, the learning behind it and the experiments that are
its foundation have been developed over the past 30 years. The original idea for Innovation Engineering was sparked in
when Doug Hall, a Chemical Engineer by education, first learned about Dr. Deming’s work at Nashua Corporation in the
early 1980s. Dr. W Edwards Deming was the American Statistician credited with helping rebuild Japan after World War II.
The founder of Toyota said “Dr. Deming is the core of our management.”
Doug applied the system approach of Deming to innovation at Procter & Gamble where he and his team set a record creating
and shipping into live market tests nine innovations in twelve months. After ten years, Doug retired from P&G and founded
the Eureka! Ranch. The Ranch’s primary business has always focused on helping thought leading multi-national companies
such as Nike, Walt Disney, Pepsi, Hewlett Packard, and American Express increase innovation speed and decrease risk.
One thing that separates the Ranch from other innovation experts is a relentless focus on measurement, statistical analysis,
and development of reproducible systems of innovation. To that end, over the past 26 years the Ranch team has conducted
quantitative research on over 26,000 innovation concepts and over 11,000 teams during the process of creating and
commercializing innovations.
Beyond corporate work, Doug has a personal interest in helping small and mid sized companies. To accomplish this, he has
published multiple best selling books, been a co-host of two national TV shows and one national radio program. In May of
2002, he and Maggie Nichols (Eureka! Ranch COO) ran the first Eureka! Ranch small business innovation program in
Scotland. It was then licensed to providers in the USA, Canada and Scotland who within a few years worked with over 300
companies.
Timeline
Fall 2005 - The first Innovation Engineering course was taught at the University of Maine.
April 2007 - A version of the Eureka! program, called Eureka! Winning Ways, was introduced to the NIST MEP
Network. Since then, more than 1,500 projects have been completed by MEP centers of various versions of the program.
Fall 2009 – Innovation Engineering was approved as an undergraduate minor at the University of Maine.
January, February, March 2010 - The first three Innovation Engineering Leadership Institutes were held by the
University of Maine and Eureka! Ranch in partnership with the Maine Development Foundation and the State of Maine
Chamber of Commerce. They were very well received.
Spring 2010 - The NIST MEP Leadership attended Leadership Institutes and became interested in the program. In the
early summer, NIST MEP centers started co-sponsoring IE Leadership Institutes.
December 2010 - the Eureka! Ranch conducted the First Innovation Engineering Black Belt program. A team of MEP
center staff attended - at no cost - to sample the advanced education program. Soon after, more MEP staff, Corporate
Clients, Small Businesses, College and Government employees adopted the Innovation Engineering Black Belt
certification program as their means for educating and enabling Innovation Change Agents.
Spring 2012 – The Innovation Engineering Graduate Certificate was approved at University of Maine.
Fall 2012 - An experiment was conducted with a new patent pending method of teaching called Cycles to Mastery. It’s a
cost effective way to implement Benjamin Bloom’s 2 Sigma Solution for improving learning effectiveness. The
experiments were overwhelmingly successful and the methodology is being implemented in all Innovation Engineering
college courses and Black Belt training programs in 2013. Early indications from the first round of classes taught using
the Cycles to Mastery technology, at the University of Maine, are finding a 4X increase in the number of students
achieving mastery versus classes taught the classic way.
Page 6
Change Model for the Movement
Starting in 1950 Dr. Deming transformed the Japanese economy. In the early 1980’s, Dr. W. Edwards Deming transformed
the USA. His theories and thinking serves as the foundation of the Innovation Engineering movement. In his quest to realign
focus from quantity to quality, as is also the case with innovation, a transformation in mindset is required by organizational
leadership and operational systems. As Dr. Deming taught, “94% of problems are due to the system, 6% due to the worker.”
The challenges of Deming’s time were around the systems of production. Today, they are around the thinking systems of the
leadership toward innovation. The goal is to shift away from reactive management and move to proactive leadership of new
products, services, customers and markets.
The challenged faced in during Deming’s time was quality. Today, the challenge is less about quality as it is about
profitability with commodity offerings. The problem is the “flat earth” economy of instant communications, internet
connectivity, efficient shipping and emerging nations. This drives down pricing and profitability. The opportunity for
increased profitability lies in reigniting the innovation culture that existed in most companies when they were young but that
tracking studies indicate declines as they age.
The quality movement of Deming’s time was powered through education. Dr. Deming taught tens of thousands through his
four-day seminars. Philip Crosby educated thousands through his five-day Quality College.
Similar to the quality movement, the Innovation Engineering movement is education driven - through three-day Leadership
Retreats and five-day Innovation Engineering Colleges. An important component of the Innovation Engineering education
movement is the use of excerpts from the 21 hours of the Deming DVD Library that we are fortunate to have the rights to use
from both the owners of the Deming Library and the Deming Institute.
Page 7
Innovation Engineering Organizational Structure
The organizing structure for the movement is the Innovation Engineering Institute - a joint venture of the University of Maine
in Orono, Maine and the Eureka! Ranch of Cincinnati, Ohio.
The driver behind the never-ending improvement of the body of knowledge is the Innovation Engineering Black Belt
community. This community of change agents is comprised of certified individuals who have demonstrated mastery of the
principles and skills required to help organizations Create, Communicate and Commercialize meaningfully unique ideas with
increased speed and decreased risk. They are the thought leaders that guide the movement. They make suggestions and
problem solve solutions to systemic challenges. They also help one another as they face implementation challenges.
The Innovation Engineering Black Belt change agents exist within companies, colleges, and government agencies. Among
those who are investing their time, energy, and money into the movement are large corporations, small companies,
governments, colleges and universities, non-profits and non-profit foundations.
Page 8
Innovation Engineering Findings: Culture Change Processes
The Role of Leadership in the Transformation
The data indicates that just as Dr. Deming found, hands-on engagement of the leadership in the process of transformation is
critical. Specifically, we are finding that when leadership is educated and engaged, their organization will define and
document seven times more projects and executes nine times more Plan, Do, Study, Act learning cycles in the Innovation
Engineering Labs online portal
The Innovation Leadership Confidence Problem
At least 85% of the leaders of companies, colleges and government agencies don’t have the confidence or skills to lead their
organization in the transformation from a culture of reactive cost control to one of proactive innovation driven growth. It’s
not that they are not interested or aware of the need to innovate. In fact, research finds that they understand the need and
urgency to “find ideas to help us escape from the commodity markets we compete in.” However, they simply don’t know
how make “the flip.” They don’t have confidence in their own skills, their people’s skills, or their organization’s ability to
innovate. This lack of confidence is often grounded in past attempts to innovate that failed.
To Build Leadership Confidence --- We Suggest “Waves” of Experiments
Before we begin the process of transformation to an innovation mindset we conduct a series of low risk, low stress
experiments we call “Innovation Waves”. These are generally three-month experiments utilizing a small team of volunteers
who learn and apply the new innovation mindset to increase innovation speed and decrease risk on a number of defined
projects.
The initial team of volunteers is usually easy to identify. If identification is a challenge, the Innovation Change Agent
Identifier is utilized. This is a set of 21 questions that was developed based on studying what traits identified those who are
most likely to take early and significant action on innovation. Specifically, those identified as Innovation Change Agents
have been in a leadership role on three times as many projects with an economic value that is three times greater than those
who don’t have the traits of change agents. The three factors and their component traits that make up change agents include:
Entrepreneurial: An adventurous and aggressive learner who is comfortable
with multi-tasking and uncertainty.
Optimistic: Positive attitude, high energy and healthy self-confidence.
Proactive Scientist: A personal passion for mining, discovering and applying
technology, facts and data.
The leadership is engaged in the process but are not required to make the public commitment to innovation until they have
internal personal confidence and confidence from the “change agents” who have been engaged in the wave.
When the transformation of mindset occurs, a total change occurs in how the organization operates. The NIST MEP Center
in Albany, New York has experienced this transformation.
Innovation Engineering Black Belt Don Wisenforth described the transformation this way, “Another reason for the uptick in
IE at CEG is: Culture. It is the way we do things. It is part of everyday nomenclature. It seems like all conversations start,
integrate or end with IE. It’s like the 8 wastes of lean, once you understand it, YOU SEE IT EVERYWHERE! It’s almost
hard to remember life without Innovation Engineering.”
Page 9
Leadership Making the Commitment to “The Flip” to an Innovation Mindset
Sometimes the decision from leadership to commit to an innovation culture transformation happens after one wave.
However, it’s common, especially with larger organizations, where the leadership is distant from the work, for two to six
waves to be completed before the leadership has the confidence to make the public commitment to cultural transformation.
When the leader makes the commitment, the following process is recommended:
Step one is examination of the habitual mindset and existing protocols for how the organization addresses innovation
driven change. This “confront reality” step by the leadership is fundamental. It’s an engagement in the root causes of
the company’s past, present and where it’s headed. Instead of an examination of the spreadsheets of the past, the
examination is focused on a mature conversation on the organization’s mindset. The conversation is focused on where
the organization is on the business lifecycle, confidence in our plans for restarting the life cycle curve, confidence in
ability to impact our future destiny and the belief systems that make up the culture that cause all of the above.
Most importantly, it’s about the leadership committing to constancy of purpose. To paraphrase Dr. Deming, constancy of
purpose is about the leadership leading the company in the development of the products, services, customers and markets
needed for the future in order for the organization to: 1) stay in business, 2) provide good jobs and 3) to grow sales and
profits.
This commitment is about taking responsibility and taking a “no whining” stand on confronting reality. It’s about using a
transformation to an innovation mindset to turn the challenges of foreign competition, technology transformations and
internet free market bidding into opportunities for growth. Basically, it’s about creating a culture that can change faster
than the marketplace does.
Step two is education in the new mindset. This involves teaching of theory and skills in the new way of thinking. In
the case of Innovation Engineering we use the Cycles to Mastery teaching methodology which consists of cycles of
Digital, Lab, Application, Experience and Reflection classes designed to enable mastery understanding of the principles
that enable a culture of never ending innovation with increased speed and decreased risk. Detailed in Attachment I.
What we don’t do: We don’t teach “tools.” In the early days of Innovation Engineering we did, as it was what
customers, especially in the USA asked us to provide them. However, as we’ve learned from real world application of
Innovation Engineering, a tool-focused approach ultimately fails in creating sustained cultural change. When you focus
on tools the transformation of mindset that is required for sustained success is missed. As Bob Mason, co-creator of the
Deming Video Library said “with tools management feels that they can simply delegate innovation to an employee to
grab a wrench and torque it up.”
We recognize that a focus on theory and skills versus tools is not easy. In fact, as Bob Mason explains it’s a deeply
imbedded component of managerial thinking. “The impulse to jump into problem solving before sitting down to
reconsider one's assumptions is a fundamental mistake. This reaction is culturally embedded and depends on the belief
that we can see the enterprise clearly and in the only way it can be apprehended. Common sense, you might say, cause
and effect immediately available. But we know from systems theory that is not true and that efforts to change things
without knowledge will be short-term and ultimately undermine everybody's best efforts.”
Page 10
Transformation to an Innovation Culture is hard. It’s really hard. However, we believe that companies, colleges
and countries have no choice if we are to have a sustainable future. To quote Kevin Cahill, Dr. Deming’s grandson and
Director of the Deming Institute, “We need to take the longer, tougher route of helping people take a look at their most
firmly held assumptions about the way they
manage, improve, and innovate. Indeed, we
must create transformation of mindset or we are
guaranteed certain failure.”
Encouragingly, we are finding that when we
educate and enable innovation change agents the
results are exponential. Specifically as the chart
to the right shows certified Innovation
Engineering Black Belts deliver 24 times more
projects and project valuation than those who are
not certified (that’s 2,400%).
Step three is engagement in the transformation.
For leadership, this means making an absolute
commitment to the new mindset. Bill Conway,
as the CEO of Nashua Corporation, was the first
Fortune 500 CEO in America to adopt Dr.
Deming’s quality mindset. In an interview with
the Innovation Engineering Institute he expressed
that Dr. Deming told him that it was his job as CEO to make the company commitment. He went on to explain that he
told his people, “This is not a consensus decision. We are going to commit to it - commit to changing how we work. You
are going to do it or you will not be working here.” Bill also explained that Dr. Deming advised him that he (Bill) had
nothing more important to do than to lead the transformation. To that end, Bill and his top staff spent 40% of their time
every day, every week working on transformation. They embraced Dr. Deming’s manager-learner-thinker-teacher model.
They worked as coaches on projects and as motivators of reluctant departments and employees.
Transformation to an Innovation Mindset - just as with a Quality Mindset takes time. Lots of time. The fastest we’ve
seen it happen is a year in small companies and two years in large companies. And this is only if the CEO is fully
engaged. When the CEO is not engaged, cultural transformation can happen from the bottom up; however, it will take
significantly longer and has a much greater risk of being disrupted by short term “emergencies.”
When asked at age 85 what was the biggest mistake that he and Dr. Deming made in the early 80’s, Bill Conway was
clear – “People need more training & support than they think and you think. The teaching is such common sense - but
they need more help than they think and that we think they need.”
To that point, Bill continued to challenge us on what we were going to do to address the task of providing support and
training for the workforce. We answered 1) deeper education and coaching, and 2) internet infrastructures. Where Dr.
Deming had a handful of statistical experts who would provide coaching to companies, we will learn from 6 Sigma and
have tens of thousands of Innovation Engineering Black Belts. And, where Dr. Deming utilized his four-day seminars
and books to create a support community, we will use the IELabs.com digital hub to create a community around the
movement, communicate daily news 365 days a year, and share advanced resources and best practices.
Bill paused, then said, “It just might work.” He then added, “But keep a sense or urgency. The country needs to
innovate quickly.”
Page 11
Educating and Enabling Innovation Change Agents
Innovation Engineering programs are focused on educating and enabling innovation change agents. We accomplish this
through EDUCATION programs and INFRASTRUCTURE systems to enable change agents.
EDUCATION: The Innovation Engineering body of knowledge is taught in four formats:
1) Innovation Engineering Undergraduate Minor (6 courses),
2) Graduate School Certificate (3 courses),
3) Community College Certificate/Associate Degree (4-6 courses) and
4) Executive Education Black Belt (Intensive Innovation College plus project coaching).
Importantly, all education programs are 100% aligned, integrated and continuously improved simultaneously. For example,
the 48 skills that make up the Innovation Engineering body of knowledge (Attachment II) are continually reviewed for
relevance and improvement.
To ensure quality and consistency, the Innovation Engineering Institute singularly handles all certification of teachers and
Black Belts. This is in contrast to the 6 Sigma certification where there is no common standard or accreditation body.
The teaching method for all Innovation Engineering programs is the patent pending Cycles to Mastery system. It’s an
efficient and effective method for delivering on Bloom’s discovery that with specialized one-on-one tutoring more than 90%
of students can achieve the same level as mastery as the top 20% of students in a traditional classroom. Details on Cycles to
Mastery can be found in Attachment I.
INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Innovation Engineering Labs.com enables Innovation Change Agents to increase speed and decrease risk with
their innovation projects. It includes systems such as an advanced 5th generation project acceleration system, access
to an active community of Innovation Change Agents for support and an advanced “Wisdom Mining” system. The
Wisdom Mining system includes simultaneous searches of nine databases to find academic wisdom, unique patent
buying opportunities, patent trends,and industry experts. An executive at a leading data base corporation called the
IE Labs Wisdom Mining system “the most effective and useful patent search engine ever created.”
2. Innovation Supply Chain.com enables Innovation Change Agents to find and filter technologies that can drive
profitable growth. It’s known that companies that pursue technology mining are five times more effective with
innovation. The problem is it is usually very difficult to understand the business potential for patents and
technologies. InnovationSupplyChain.com is a marketplace of technologies that have been translated so that their
business potential can be understood in 2 minutes or less. It also includes a closed Innovation Request platform
where Innovation Change Agents can post Innovation Requests to the entire Innovation Engineering community for
help with ideas and advice and to help them find technology, experts and manufacturing capabilities.
InnovationSupplyChain.com technology powers the USA Department of Commerce’s NIST MEP - USA National
Innovation Marketplace at USAInnovation.org.
Private Innovation Supply Chain marketplaces enable corporations to access patent translations, innovations, ideas
and advice both across their internal divisions or departments and across their external networks of suppliers,
vendors and customers. The core technology that powers the system is the patent pending MBS Fourt-Woodlock
simulation that has been used to quantitatively test over 26,000 innovations. Organizations that have used the
technology for innovation evaluation include Procter & Gamble, Walt Disney, Hewlett Packard, American Express,
Kraft Foods, AC Nielsen BASES and over 200 other corporate clients. The method was independently reviewed by
James J. Filliben of the USA National Institute of Standards and Technology who gave a public presentation at the
2009 NIST MEP Conference.
Page 12
College, University and K-12 Academic Programs
EDUCATION
Innovation Engineering education offerings at universities and colleges include:
1) Undergraduate Minor (6 courses)
2) Graduate School Certificate (3 courses)
3) Community College Certificate or Associates Degree (6 courses)
Efforts are also underway for programs for younger age students in the K-12 system. The most notable effort, the Maine
Middle School Invention Convention, was born out of the collaboration between the Innovation Engineering Institute and the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Invention Convention takes the place of a traditional middle school science
fair and provides an opportunity for students to think creatively and practically as they explore, create, and promote
innovative solutions to everyday challenges in their world and beyond. Some of our other K-12 programs include:
1) Innovation Summer Camp (Gr. 3-8)
2) After school Innovation Club (Gr. 5-8)
3) Hands-On Innovation Engineering Workshops (Gr. K-12)
The “Body of knowledge” that makes up the Innovation Engineering curriculum includes 48 skills, each with two or more
sub skills. The skills divide into four groups - CREATE innovations, COMMUNICATE Innovations, COMMERCIALIZE
innovations, and SYSTEMS for innovation and cultural change.
For perspective, the undergraduate minor consists of six classes: Create, Communicate, Commercialize, Accelerate, plus two
independent study experience classes where students are challenged to lead an innovation project and to serve as process
coach on a project. The program is currently at seven colleges and universities. Plans are to expand to 200 schools by 2020.
All education systems, with the exception of K-12 at the moment, use the patent pending Cycles to Mastery methodology. It
is a solution to what is known as Bloom’s 2 Sigma Problem. Recall, Bloom found that with specialized tutoring about 90% of
students could achieve at the level of the top 20% of students in a classic classroom. Bloom’s 2 Sigma Problem as it is
known was to find a way to achieve the level of success in a mass classroom that is achieved with tutoring. This teaching
methodology is documented more fully in Attachment I.
Innovation Engineering Interns & Scholarships: The financial support of the Blackstone Charitable Foundation has
funded the scholarship and internship programs as part of a larger initiative to boost innovation and economic development in
the state of Maine. With this support, we are able to award 100 Innovation Engineering scholarships and 25 internships every
year. These programs have accelerated connections between industry and academics. They have been particularly helpful in
keeping Innovation Engineering grounded in real world challenges that companies face.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Innovation Engineering Labs portal is the primary tool for leading classes through the Cycles to Mastery System. It houses
the Cycles to Mastery technology, all educational content and the unique assignment and feedback system for student work.
Other infrastructure includes systems to reduce variation in assignment grading, teaching assistants as well as professional
development and training opportunities for teachers, students, and interns
Page 13
Innovation Engineering: Small & Mid Sized Enterprise (SME) Company Offerings
Getting Small and mid sized company leaders to engage in innovation is very difficult. 85% of small business owners are
“reactive” in orientation and lack confidence in the ability of their organization to innovate. Quite simply, they don’t know
how to innovate - they don’t have a system and they don’t know where to begin.
EDUCATION
Innovation Engineering System For Engaging Small & Mid Sized Enterprises
This is a system for educating and engaging (selling) small business owners/CEO’s on the need to adopt an innovation
mindset and system. It’s been designed based on 26 years of front line experience selling innovation to the unwilling. The
program includes Cycles to Mastery - classes plus front line “work withs” and resources.
Innovation Engineering Management System
This is the Innovation Engineering offering for helping SME companies make the flip to an innovation mindset. It is started
and migrated through the culture of small and mid sized companies through a series of “project waves” designed to grow
organizational and leadership confidence to flip to an innovation culture.
STEP 1: Innovation Engineering Green Belt WAVE
The I.E. Green Belt wave is a three-month demonstration of the Innovation Engineering System. It’s lead by a certified
Innovation Engineering Black Belt working with a team of four to eight company volunteers. The program consists of
three weeks of two-hour training programs where participants learn how to Create, Communicate, Commercialize
meaningfully unique ideas. The fourth week is a half-day Accelerate session where the team applies what they’ve
learned on existing and/or fresh innovations for profitable growth. From this session, 2 projects are accelerated forward
to market with eight weeks of coaching in the Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP system. At the conclusion of the twelve weeks,
those that were active participants in the projects become certified Innovation Engineering Green Belts.
STEP 2: More IE Green Belt WAVES and/or Advanced WAVES
It’s common for companies to have another group of employees experience the transformation to an innovation mindset
through participating in an Innovation Engineering Green Belt Wave. It’s also common that those who have become
certified move on to solving the company’s very important problems and opportunities through Advanced Innovation
Engineering Waves. The advanced waves are powered by the IELabs.com Black Belt Playlist system. Among the preset
playlists available or in development are: New Customer Development, Export Development, Lean Innovation,
Sustainability Innovation, Profitability Innovation, Customer Service Innovation or Marketing Message programs. The
benefits of the IELabs.com playlist system include: increases in IE Black Belt’s efficiency and effectiveness and
integration with the IELabs.com metrics platform.
STEP 3: Adopt & Sustain an Innovation Culture through Black Belt Certification
This is an intensive training and certification program designed to build skills and confidence to lead Innovation
Engineering Cultural Change projects with increased speed and decreased risk. The 48 skills that make up the
Innovation Engineering body of knowledge are taught using the Cycles to Mastery teaching system (detailed later). In
brief, the process consists of: 1) Watching Digital Classes on the 48 Skills, 2) Attending the 5 day Innovation College
and completing Lab and Application class assignments, 3) Leading a project and coaching a project with support from an
Innovation Engineering Master Black Belt and 4) Submitting a reflection journal on what you learned as a result of
following the process.
Innovation Engineering Workshops: The four I.E. Workshops (Create, Communicate, Commercialize and Accelerate) are
often also offered as public events for very small companies as part of government programs.
Idea Accelerator Projects: These are usually short projects focused on specific company needs that utilize the Innovation
Engineering mindset and resources. They are primarily for government-sponsored programs focused on providing assistance
to very small companies as part of a public service mission.
INFRASTRUCTURE: InnovationEngineeringLabs.com is the digital hub for classes, projects, metrics and connections to
the community. InnovationSupplyChain.com provides links to innovations and innovators who can help increase innovation
speed and decrease risk.
Page 14
Innovation Engineering: Large Company, College & Government Department Offerings
It is hard. It is really, really hard to get large organizations such as corporations, colleges and government departments to
make the flip to an innovation mindset. That is, to get them to “walk the talk” and bring innovation into how they teach,
administer and provide services. This is due in large part to the departmental silos, command and control structures and
reactive/prevent failure mindset that exists. The result is it can be very difficult generating momentum for innovation change.
In the Eureka! Ranch’s 26 years of experience working with large organizations we’ve found that to be successful with
implementing innovation in large organizations you need to generate significant momentum at the start if you are going to
have a chance at developing enough energy to take a concept from idea to launch. Strategically this takes the form of:
1) Immersion: Multi day, deep dives, away from the office are needed to give the “mental space” for the Flip.
2) Confront Reality: Honest, and ego free truth telling is critical for igniting momentum for change.
3) Think Big: You have to start with big ideas to have a chance to have anything worth doing at the end of development.
With large organizations ideas tend to get smaller as they go through corporate systems. (Concept scores go from 50% odds
of success to 29%). Note, with small companies ideas become bigger in time - as they have more ownership and more honest
conversations - especially with first generation owners/leaders.
EDUCATION
1. Innovation Engineering RETREAT
Innovation Engineering Retreats provide a deep immersion into WHAT is Innovation Engineering and HOW it can
be applied to your unique culture and business situation. Retreats are appropriate for leadership teams, project teams
and cross-functional teams reviewing options for Innovation Systems. These two and a half day programs feature
tight and focused presentations on the 16 skills that are the foundation of the 48 Thinking Skills that make up the
Innovation Engineering body of knowledge. The presentations are followed by hands on “Lab classes” to solidify
the learning. Finally a set of “Application” and “Reflection” Classes apply the skills to their situation so to
maximize return on investment from the retreat. Retreats are intimate and high intensity with a maximum of six
teams of four to six people per team with a ratio of one Innovation Engineering Master Black Belt for every three
teams.
2. Innovation Engineering ACCELERATOR
Innovation Engineering Accelerators compress 4 months work into 4 days. The focus is on a Very Important
Problem or Opportunity. Preparation for the session involves a one-month immersion into the challenge. It includes
IE Green Belt training, tech mining, future mining, market mining and insight mining. This is followed by the 4 day
session where one hour cycles of Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP learning are executed including such things as: making
prototypes, customer research, sales forecasting and cost estimating. To ensure a return on time invested
Accelerators include 8 weeks of hands on coaching to resolve project Death Threats and to optimize for success.
3. Innovation Engineering CULTURE CHANGE PROGRAM
Following one to six Accelerators, the leadership of a company, division or subsidiary then makes the commitment
to cultural change. This involves accelerating volunteers into the Innovation Engineering Black Belt program and
full customization of the enterprise version of the Innovation Engineering Labs portal.
INFRASTRUCTURE
InnovationEngineeringLabs.com is the digital hub for classes, projects, metrics and connections to the community.
InnovationSupplyChain.com provides a private Innovation Marketplace for companies to allow them to connect across
departmental “silos” inside, to vendors and customers outside and to the USA National Innovation Marketplace of
innovations and innovators who can help increase innovation speed and decrease risk.
Page 15
Innovation Engineering: Commercial & Government Licensing Options
The strategic intent of the Innovation Engineering Institute (Eureka! Ranch and University of Maine) is to keep the core staff
at both organizations small and focused on never ending innovation of the overall system. Expansion of the movement will
be through licensing of existing organizations to deploy the education and infrastructure systems developed by the Innovation
Engineering Institute team. In order to spark a nationwide culture change, this deployment must continue to happen both
regionally and nationally.
To maximize efficiency when innovating on a regional or national level, it is generally recommended that existing resources
leveraged for the transformation of a region. This means tapping into existing resources through colleges and universities,
economic development groups, chambers of commerce, government agencies, etc. Key individuals from a given
organization are identified as the Innovation Change Agents and move on to complete the Innovation Engineering Black Belt
program. Once these Change Agents begin the Black Belt training, a private Innovation Engineering Labs digital hub is
created to provide connective tissues and to make it possible to have standardized metrics on the broader initiative.
Because of the wide variety of organizations, their respective innovation needs can vary significantly. Therefore, the
packaging options will differ and are usually customized to meet an organization’s specific needs. However, the core methods
of delivery always consist of education and infrastructure.
There are four types of Innovation Engineering licensing agreements.
Each agreement includes a customized blend of Education (IE Black Belt Training, etc.) and Infrastructure (IELabs.com
and InnovationSupplyChain.com).
1. Innovation Engineering Black Belt SITE license: This is a use agreement that enables companies, colleges and
government agencies to use Innovation Engineering internally. The license is to the organization and is paid on a fee
basis for services and support.
2. Innovation Engineering SME Black Belt license: This is a commercial reseller agreement that enables government
programs, non-profits and for profit organizations to market Innovation Engineering SME services (projects, IEMS,
IELabs, Workshops, etc.) to companies with a maximum of 250 employees. The license is a “click through” license
tied to the training programs and the Innovation Engineering Labs portal. The cost of the license can be paid for
through a government or central organization contract on a fixed fee basis. Alternatively, it can be paid on a revenue
sharing basis.
3. Innovation Engineering Enterprise Black Belt license: This is a commercial reseller agreement that enables
government programs, non-profits and for profit organizations to market Innovation Engineering ENTERPRISE
services (projects, Accelerator, Cultural Change, Retreats, Experiences) to large organizations. The license is to the
organization and is paid on a revenue sharing basis.
4. Innovation Engineering Academic Black Belt license: This is a reseller agreement that enables accredited, nonprofit education institutions to offer Innovation Engineering courses and to offer commercial services to SME
companies (under 250 employees). The license is to the organization for teaching and to the instructors through a
“click through” license tied to the training programs and the Innovation Engineering Labs portal. The cost for the
license involves a small fee for training and a fee per student per class for access to Cycles to Mastery course content
within IELabs.com.
Page 16
The Beginning of Awareness Building of Innovation Engineering
The Innovation Engineering Institute team has made the conscious decision to maintain a relatively low public profile
through the end of 2012. This was because of limitations in our capacity to support corporate projects, lead college faculty
training, IE Black Belt training and certification. Another reason for the “low profile” has been a desire to build a rock solid
and enduring foundation for Innovation Engineering as a new field of study.
The public introduction of Innovation Engineering was at the I.E. Leadership Institute held January 27-29, 2010 at Sugarloaf
Ski Resort in Maine. Since then, I.E. Leadership Institutes have been the fundamental awareness-building tool with more
than 4,000 business leaders from across the country having attended. By design, they have been deployed on a focused,
regional basis. We have found that it takes about three events to generate significant momentum in a region.
Today, as we end 2012, we are in a position where we have a solid foundation and scalable systems for training and support
for Innovation Engineering. Therefore, in 2013 we will begin the process of building scalable systems for awareness
building. Note that this is something with which we have deep skills and experience. The Eureka! Ranch team has had
feature stories within major media, four best selling books, two television programs, and one radio program, plus public
events to generate awareness. Our plan is to test and learn on awareness building in 2013 and scale up efforts in 2014.
Innovation Engineering EVENTS
Effective 2013, the Innovation Engineering Leadership Institute is being discontinued. It’s being replaced by the more
intensive Innovation Engineering Retreat format and the more efficient Innovation Engineering Experience format.
Innovation Engineering Experience: This is a one-day, high intensity experience performed Innovation Engineering
Master Black Belts. The program features tight and focused presentations on the 8 skills that are the foundation of the
48 Thinking Skills that comprises the body of knowledge known as Innovation Engineering. After each presentation,
participants are guided through a “Lab Class” where they apply the skills on a case study challenge. Each skill ends
with a guided reflection where participants consider how they can apply the skill to their organization. The program
concludes with a three-dimensional simulation called Paul’s Popcorn where the participants experience the entire
innovation mindset in operation as they work in teams to create a product, concept, sales forecast, pricing, and
marketing message. As a special bonus, each participant gets a confidential and quantitative Idea Scan research report,
following the Experience, on either their current marketing message or an idea for a new offering they are considering.
Innovation Engineering Keynotes: These are 45 minute to half-day events designed to educate participants in an
engaging and entertaining manner.
Innovation Engineering PUBLISHING
Book: During 2013, the Innovation Engineering book will be written by Doug Hall and published late in the year or
early in 2014. Drafts of chapters will be used to build awareness and engagement for the movement via the internet.
The book is tentatively titled: The Flip, The Innovation Engineering system for flipping to a culture of Never Ending
Innovation & Growth with Increased Speed (up to 6X) and Decreased Risk (30 to 80%).
Blog: There are two blogs - the Innovation Engineering Leadership Blog, which is public, and the Brain Brew Black
Belt Blog, which is a private blog for certified IE Black Belts and those who are in the process of gaining certification.
In 2012, the Leadership blog was written by Doug Hall and is available at www.DougHall.com. During 2013, the
Leadership blog will will feature a broader collection of writers from industry and academia.
Television: We recognize that it was television that was the “spark” that created the Deming movement. Specifically,
the NBC special “If Japan Can Why Can’t We?” was key to generating awareness. The principles behind Innovation
Engineering were featured on a season of American Inventor on ABC and two years of Brain Brew Radio on Public
Radio International. During 2012, Innovation Engineering was featured on a Canadian TV show titled Backyard
Inventors. We are working on a new television concept that focuses on “restarting” established companies. We believe
that reigniting established companies will feature more meaningful education opportunities and greater relevance for the
Innovation Engineering Movement.
Page 17
Innovation Engineering Metrics & Measurements
The Innovation Engineering Labs.com portal provides unprecedented metrics on the complete innovation process from idea
creation to launch. The analysis of this set of data is an ongoing academic research project. In all cases where metrics are
reported a classic control chart is utilized to understand special cause versus common cause errors.
Current thinking on metrics are:
Primary SALES SYSTEM Metrics
When an organization is responsible for customer development (government grant recipient, commercial licensee) the
primary metric for accessing the health of the sales system is the number of face-to-face meetings held with leaders of
prospective client companies.
Innovation Engineering SYSTEM Metrics
The primary metric for evaluating effectiveness of the overall Innovation Engineering system is the valuation of the projects
generated and in process within the innovation pipeline. Pipeline valuation is used because as the Journal of Product
Innovation Management and others report it takes an average of 24 months for an innovation that represents a 50% change
versus existing offerings to go from development to launch. Total timeline from idea discovery to one year of sales results
grows timing to 3.5 years.
Short term we have a model developed by the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness from US MEA, US Economic
Census and Economic Modeling Specialists Inc. that can translate estimated of innovation driven growth into potential for
jobs. Longer term, tracking studies on actual sales and employee growth will be used to generate “adjustment” factors for the
innovation pipeline based on company size, profile and sector.
The next most important system metrics are on the Innovation Success Curve, specifically, the success rate of innovations
moving from one stage of development to another.
Specific metrics include:
• The percent of projects in Discovery reaching Development. The lower and
upper control limits for this are 40% and 60%.
• The Percent of projects in Development reaching Delivery- The lower and upper
control limits for this are 40% and 60%.
• Time to a decision in Discovery - The lower and upper control limits for this are 6
and 10 weeks.
Innovation Engineering ENGAGEMENT Metrics
Engagement metrics include:
• I.E. Black Belt Completion - assignments and time to completion
• Number of Idea Request – within control limit is between 5 and 15 a month
• Number of Projects Black Belts are in a leadership capacity on
Innovation Engineering EDUCATION Metrics
Education metrics include:
• Percent of students achieving mastery - In control is 90 to 100%
• Percent of correct on first tries of quizzes and assignments - In control is 50 to 80%
Page 18
Research & Development Priorities
R&D Priority #1: Cycles to Mastery
Our most important research project is to optimize the patent pending Cycles to Mastery teaching system. The R&D
team on this includes the Eureka! Ranch and University of Maine’s Foster Center for Student Innovation and seven
other colleges teaching Innovation Engineering. Top Cycles to Mastery projects in 2013 include:
• Application of Cycles to Mastery to Math classes. The goal of this research at the University of Maine is to
quantify the potential for the technology to help address the STEM education challenge and the desire for more
effective mass customized learning pedagogical approaches.
• Systems for Increasing Self Awareness of Innovation Success Potential: This is a system named Idea Scan that
enables students (and executives) to calibrate their innovation concept versus thousands of others so to quantify
their probability of success. It uses a combination of self-scoring, peer review, instructor feedback and
computer “reading.”
• Patents As Stimulus Source: We are researching the development of automated tools that can make it possible to
quickly (at the speed of industry) use public domain patents as a source for tech mining inspirations - and
automated trend analysis by patent subclass as a source for Future mining of technology trends.
• Innovation Driven Cultural Change in the Inner City. A longer-term project is to study the potential for using
innovation as a tool for generating jobs in economically challenged areas. We have run some initial prototypes
in the inner city of Cincinnati and are exploring more experiments.
Why this research matters: Quite simply we need to find ways to teach faster and more effectively. Innovation
Engineering requires a “flip” to a new mindset that has a broader bandwidth of thinking and a confidence to think “what
if.” It also requires learning of some fundamental thinking, writing, math and scientific discovery of skills that are
currently lacking both on campus and in industry.
R&D Priority #2: IELabs.com Digital Hub Intelligence
Our second most important research project is discover and ship systems for bringing more intelligence to front line
work teams through improvements in the Innovation Engineering Labs.com portal. The top IELabs projects for 2013
include:
• Smart Meetings: A system that improves the efficiency and effectiveness of weekly project meetings, monthly
process reviews and quarterly innovation pipeline review meetings. Among the areas being explored are smart
agendas, process improvement control charts and one-page management summaries.
• Innovation Supply Chain Systems: Improving collaboration across company silos, divisions, countries, inside
AND between companies, suppliers and customers is a major opportunity. We have some key elements that are
working massively and others that don’t work at all. We are at a stage where we need some expert help. We are
exploring the hiring of some academic experts on the challenges of social collaboration to assist us in this effort
during 2013.
• Wisdom Super Search: The internet is a invaluable tool however it is often very inefficient and ineffective. We
have some specialized tools that do simultaneous searches on a collection of public, private and proprietary
databases. The method shows promise but there is much to be learned.
Why this research matters: The investment of time, energy and money required to train and certify an Innovation
change agent or IE Black Belt as we call them is not to be taken lightly. The improvement of IELabs.com maximizes the
return on investment from that education. This requires never ending process improvement.
Page 19
R&D Priority #3: Forensic Analysis Methods To Enable Calibration and Risk Forecasting
As the saying goes, “all forecasts are wrong - some are useful.” Analysis of thousands of forecasts finds that the
greatest variance is the inability of small company and large company executives to accurately estimate the core
forecasting inputs: awareness, distribution, first purchase revenue, repeat purchase revenue, repeat rate, and additional
repeats per repeater. Simple modeling of client inputs finds that 80% of the variance in most industry sales forecasts is
due to errors in client inputs.
The Innovation Engineering R&D team believes that by modeling all inputs as probability curves and by using Monte
Carlo simulation (classic 10,000 runs) to do forecasts forecasting error can be reduced dramatically. In effect the
corporation’s innovation work processes will be modeled as system with an identifiable variance. For each variable a
probability curve will be generated that models what the company systems deliver. For example: repeat purchase rate
is a function of the work processes and methods used by the company’s product development system to validate a new
offering. And, awareness and distribution are a function of the work processes, resources and methods used by the sales
and marketing teams. Our plans are to create custom probability models for each corporation. Each model will be fully
documented with the ability to modify the probability curves of forecasting inputs when there are significant and
tangible reasons to do so.
Why this research matters: CEO’s view innovation as risky. Smarter forecasting models can reduce risk. Custom
models will be invaluable to large corporations who are making massive investment decisions. Learning from the
corporate work will enable simplified versions of the model that can be used by small companies.
R&D Priority #4: 5 Year Life Cycle - Trial, Repeat and Diffusion Forecasting
The Innovation Engineering R&D team has worked with academics to invent a method for forward forecasting Bass
Diffusion coefficients. This makes possible five-year forecasts of innovation life cycles. It does this by combining a
Fourt Woodlock trial and repeat model with a Bass Diffusion forecast to predict the sales lifecycle based on different
marketing input scenarios. The R&D team’s experience working with two European corporations and one US company
has been very encouraging - especially when forecasting on a country and culture basis. Continued investment of time,
energy and money from the corporate sector will drive additional learning in the first half of 2013.
Why this research matters: Jim Philliben of NIST identified that awareness and distribution are the more volatile
variables when modeling innovation success. Both variables are driven by marketing spending. With a reliable tool for
predicting the impact of Bass diffusion coefficients p and q - small and large companies will be able to make: 1) smarter
go/no-go decisions especially for “slow build” innovations, 2) smarter decisions on the right marketing investment
relative to return, 3) smarter decisions on when innovations should be killed in the marketplace and 4) smarter decisions
on planning when to restart the innovation curve with new innovations.
Page 20
Attachment #I: Cycles to Mastery™
During early 2012 it became clear that while the Innovation Engineering “content” was meaningful and unique we
were seeing the same bell curve of results seen in a classic classroom - with some getting it great - some not at all and
most in the middle. Given the urgency we felt to expand the movement - both to more Universities, Community
Colleges, Companies and Countries we embarked on an R&D project - using the Innovation Engineering system to
invent a new way of teaching.
The goal for the new method was to help all students achieve mastery. The foundation of the program was Benjamin
Bloom’s publication, The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One
Tutoring (Educational Researcher, Vol. 13, No.6, pp.4-16.) The article summarizes that with specialized tutoring, 90%
+ of students can achieve the same level as mastery as the top 20% of students in a classic classroom. Bloom then
outlines a series of Mastery Learning strategies that can help achieve similar results but in a more cost effective means
in a classroom.
The patent pending Cycles to Mastery approach blends the work of Bloom, Formative Assessment, Deming’s Quality
System principles and an internet based digital hub. The result is both an increase in the number of students achieving
mastery and a process for never ending increases in the mastery standard. In effect, Cycles to Mastery delivers
“Learning Inflation” instead of “grade inflation.”
Cycles to Mastery has been successfully demonstrated in four Innovation Engineering courses at the University of
Maine and through a series of Innovation Engineering Workshops.
Cycles to Mastery is a “feed forward” instruction-by-practice system of learning cycles that include a combination of:
1) Digital Class - web videos on the core curriculum of Innovation Engineering skills and sub-skills plus
interactive quizzes that feed forward what students have learned and not learned to the instructor so that
adaptations can be made in the next class.
2) Lab Class - hands on group and individual assignments in class where students learn the skills and sub-skills
taught in the Digital class through highly focused labs experiences. Fast "Plan, Do, Study, Act" feedback
loops provide rapid grading of each sub-skill assignment. Each student is then given the opportunity to
resubmit till they achieve success. The % correct on each sub-skill is fed forward to the instructor so that
the next class can be modified appropriately.
3) Application Class - hands on group and individual assignments in class where students apply the skill taught
and combination of skills to realistic scenarios or challenges. Again, the % correct on each sub-skill is fed
forward to the instructor so that the next class can be modified appropriately.
4) Reflection Class - Students write a reflection on what they have learned. The academic literature is clear on
the value of reflection.
5) Experience Class - These are real world, real life challenges. They are used to bring the learning to life and
are used in particular with Innovation Engineering Green and Black Belt certifications. They are also used
as the final two classes of the Innovation Engineering Minor where students lead a project and coach a
project.
An important component of the Cycles to Mastery system is never ending increases in what we define as mastery. We
use Deming Control Charts to quantify student learning in each course. When the “% correct” on first try in Digital,
Lab or Application classes goes above the upper control limit - on a continuing basis - we increase the depth and
difficulty of what we teach. The result is in effect “mastery inflation” as we continuously increase the standard of what
we define as mastery.
Page 21
What this means is that every year - our Innovation Engineering graduates on campus and in industry Black Belt
programs are always getting smarter. Recently we delivered Cycles to Mastery versions of the Innovation Engineering
Workshops with two multi-national corporations where the participants were relatively “hostile” groups towards
innovation. Specifically they were product supply, production and finance departments. In one case the program was
such a surprising success they have asked us to run the program again in two other countries. In the other case the first
program at their corporate headquarters went so well that word of mouth generated sell out demand for the next course.
On campus - when students in the INV180 (Create), INV282 (Communicate) and INV392 (Commercialize) classes who have experienced Cycles to Mastery for four weeks were asked for their recommendation they were unanimous in
their support. A small sampling of their comments are shown below.
How is this better? Less stress, don't really learn anything in other classrooms, whereas this allows the
information to stick in your head so you don't forget it. The applying is the important part that makes it stick.
No more information regurgitation.
Failing isn't a bad thing here. You lose your fear of failing here, because it's okay. Because you are doing live
grading, it's like you (the instructors) are working with us, not against us.
I like that we can spend the entire class working instead of having to take notes on a lecture.
Forget about the naysayers...Once they see that it is working they will change to the new method.
We have to change how we teach eventually, so why wait? Just do it. The current system of teaching doesn’t
work.
Why is this less stressful? No tests, so you don't feel like you're learning to take a test - you're learning to learn.
You're focusing more on the content. With less stress, you have more fun so you're learning more.
No test, just lots of assignments means you can fail. With a test, if you fail, you fail the class.
I’ve always struggled with regular lectures and I am always wondering if I'm really learning, but with this I feel
like I am actually learning and actually building skills.
Compared to old classes, here you are learning a new way to think, not just the content. Working on changing
the mind instead of cramming it with information.
You know what you have to do... The old system is broken and shitty. In this class I feel like you are here to
help me learn. When I go to other classes after this one - I feel like yelling - you’re here to just show off how
smart you are - you’re not here to help me learn.
This system isn't perfect yet, but the old one is broken, so why not take a risk and change it?
This is the best thing that ever happened to any college.
I don't like the fact that teachers just do the same things every year. I like that with this class you adapt as we
go forward. It’s more fun and dynamic. It's not static.
What I enjoy about this class... I often feel frustrated because I have a lot of goals in life but I don’t know how
to get there because of fear of failure. By taking this class, I am beginning to see I can go forward with my
ideas, I have the groundwork laid to make ideas happen.
Early indications from the first round of classes taught using the Cycles to Mastery technology, at the University of
Maine, are finding a 4X increase in the number of students achieving mastery versus classes taught the classic way.
For those who are students of the quality movement - it’s interesting to remember that Phillip Crosby's success with
teaching and implementing a quality mindset during the 80’s was driven in large part by his investment in a then new
and more effective method of teaching i.e. the use of video cassette case studies and scenarios to make the teaching
“real.”
Page 22
Attachment II: The 48 Innovation Engineering Skills
This is the list of the 48 skills that make up the Innovation Engineering body of knowledge and the four Innovation
Engineering college courses. Each of these skills has 2 to 4 sub-skills that make up the skill. This list is being
continuously optimized based on feedback from the Innovation Engineering community of users and academics.
CREATE
COMMUNICATE
1. Meaningful Uniqueness
2. Stimulus & Diversity
3. Drive Out Fear 1.0
4. Insight & Market Mining
5. Tech Mining
6. Future Mining
7. Create Sessions – Spark Decks
8.. Check Lists, Matrices & Idea Engineering
9.. Create Sessions - Leadership
10. Lateral Thinking Techniques
11. Triz
12. Problem Solving Inventing
1. Customer & Problem
2. Benefit Promise
3. True Product / Service / System Proof
4. Complete Ideas
5. Ideas to Paper Free Writing
6. Clarity
7. Secondary Proof
8. Advanced Benefit Promise
9. Communication Translations
10. Proactive Selling
11. Tech Translation
12. Meaningful vs. Mindless Marketing
COMMERCIALIZE
1. Drive Out Fear 2.0
2. The Development Process
3. Fermi Estimating
4. Cost & Price Estimating
5. Forecasting
6. Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP
7. Death Threat First Steps
8. Death Threat Research
9. Death Threat Prototyping
10. Simultaneous Engineering
11. Business Models
12. Patent Fundamentals
SYSTEMS
1. Create Session Design
2. Create Session Leadership
3. Project Coaching
4. Management Coaching – Systems & Pipeline
5. Advanced Tech & Insight Mining
6. Provisional Patent Writing
7. Promoting Cultural Change
8. Systems Integration
9. Innovation Supply Chains Inside
10. Innovation Supply Chains Outside
11. Forensic Finance Analysis for Root Causes
12. Proactive Leadership
Page 23
Attachment III: Reasons for Optimism
As a new field of academic and industrial study learning continues at a rapid pace. That said, the hard data we’ve gathered
on the effectiveness of the Innovation Engineering mindset gives us reason for optimism.
Total Value of Innovation Engineering Pipeline by Client Companies
Forecast potential for jobs from this pipeline
$4.1 Billion
70,000
Number of Innovations Quantified & in Database
Number of Large Corporation Teams quantified
Number of Small Company Teams quantified
26,000 +
6,000 +
7,000 +
Number of participants in IE Black Belt Training (started 12/10)
I.E. Courses taken per year
350 +
400 +
Value of Translated Technologies in Innovation Marketplace
Innovation Request Responses From Community Each Year
IELabs.com usage - page views a month
$954 Billion
9,600
70,000
Success Curve: Improvement in Written ideas to One that Ships
Success Curve: Improvement in Development Success Rate
12X
250%
Page 24
Innovation Success Curves
Conclusion:
• Innovation Engineering is a true “systemic” improvement
• Biggest Effectiveness gain is going into Develop - where the most time & money are spent
- NOTE: This is as predicted by Cooper and others in the literature
• Innovation Engineering is about 12X More Effective in Raw idea to Shipping idea
# projects to get ONE Success
(% surviving prior stage)
Project Stage
Real World Best Estimate
Research & Technology
Management*
(Patents, VC’s, Companies)
Innovation Engineering IELabs
Project Distribution**
DEFINE
Ideas in writing
176 (100%)
14 (100%)
DISCOVER
small effort
74 (41%)
5 (36%)
DEVELOP
major effort
5 (7%)
2 (40%)
DELIVERY
to market
(defined as success)
1 (20%)
1 (50%)
% of Define that make it to
Delivery
0.6%
7.1%
* Stevens, A., & Burley, J. (1997). 3000 Raw Ideas = 1 Commercial Success. Research and Technology
Management, 40, 16-27.
** 10.12 Review of distribution of projects recorded in IELabs across all organizations world wide.
Page 25
Attachment IV: Success Stories
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ANVIL uses Innovation Engineering to avoid $100k failure
Automated Dynamics expands with CEG Business Growth Services
Avant Technologies Takes New Product to Market
B&W Trailer Hitches Brings a New Product to Market in 5 months
Innovation Accelerator Changes Culture and Increases Sales
Despite Economic Downturn & Housing Slump New Marketing Results in Significantly better qualified leads
Brunson anticipates $750,000 in new sales from 3 new ideas generated through Innovation Engineering
Brunson Instruments Launches Two New Products in Four Months
A 12 Million Dollar Projection Drives this Companies New Ideas
Innovation Engineering Helps Can-Do National Tape Co. identify 90 New uses for Adhesive Tape
CARDSource Projects 1.3 million dollars in new revenue from just 2 new ideas
Lafayette- Innovation with an Accent.
Classic Designs/Tablelegs Commercializes 2 new Products with Innovation Engineering
Coal Creek Coffee Company Recaptures 12% of their Lost Market Share
Cookshack Increases Profits 8% in 8 Months
CEO Predicts that 10 - 15 Percent of Revenue in 2012 will Come from New Products
Cream of the West, LLC Increased Profits and Created Jobs
D&E Machine Company Projects increased sales of $4.5 million brings manufacturing from Asia to the U.S.
CEO Leads Company In Innovation
After struggling for 17 years with trying to commercialize on his own an entrepreneur finds immediate success using
Innovation Engineering Tools
Innovation Engineering Program Drives New Ideas for Generating Revenue at ETCO Specialty Products
Fisher Space Pen saves money through Fail Fast, Fail Cheap Cycles of Learning
Early Stage Forecasting Predicts up to $54 million in Additional Sales from New Growth Concepts
Lafayette Chamber Uses Innovation to be named USA National Chamber of the Year
Greno Uses Innovation to Increase annual revenues by 16%
One company learns how to mutually own new ideas and not to just rely on the president
J&J Services Estimates 20 Million Dollars in Revenue from one New Product
Maple Landmark Woodcraft: Middlebury Toy Company Garners National Attention With New Line
The Medalcraft Mint Diversifies Sales with Help from WMEP and Innovation Engineering
Fuel Cell Company Gets Quick Win With Systematic Approach to Innovation
Oceanit Laboratories expects to increase revenue by 3.5 million with New Markets
Pertech Resources, Inc. Develops 5 New Products
Maple Landmark Woodcraft: Middlebury Toy Company Garners National Attention With New Line
Precision Analysis Doubles Sales in 5 Months
Innovation Leads to Company Growth
Questech Unleashes New Product with help from VMEC and Innovation Engineering
Rhino Foods saves money through Innovation Engineering, Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP Cycles of Learning
New Ideas from Innovation Engineering Leadership Institute leads to $1.8 million in increased sales
Traditional to new ideas in added value farm equipment
Bakery Achieves $10 Million in New Sales with Innovation Engineering
State of Washington Department of Commerce uses Innovation Engineering to deliver quality services
Taco Time uses Innovation Engineering Leadership Institute to launch business growth
The Hip Check-It Pays to Network
A system for Innovation gets one CEO more Excited about the Future than He has been in a Long Time
Illinois Manufacturer Of Nuclear Power Components Could Triple Sales with Innovation Engineering
Wenger Manufacturing Inc. Achieves Sales Increase with MAMTC Innovation Engineering Project
Windcreek projects 25 Million dollars in Revenue over 10 Years after Attending IELI
Wood’s Pow’r-Grip Co., Inc. Makes a Change for Growth
XC Associates Finds Two Wins Through Discovery
Small Ohio Job Shop finds Export Opportunity through USA NIM
Page 26
Attachment V: The Many Ways The Transformation to an Innovation Mindset is Utilized
The benefits of Innovation Engineering include the Innovation Engineering Black Belts’ new Innovation Mindset - tools and
training - to make a difference for their organization or their clients. The events listed are responses to an Innovation
Engineering Black Belt Blog post (a private blog for Black Belts).
Conclusion:Innovation Engineering Skills are utilized for MUCH MORE than simply new products & services.
• It’s a new mindset for managing and leading the organization.
• It’s a method for increasing speed and decreasing risk with everything
- Meetings - Processes - Decisions - Operations
•
A company took too long to get materials. The Supply Chain groups use Process Improvement Checklist to improve
the process.
•
A team needed a supplier for specific kind of biodegradable packaging and used the Request for Advice system in
Labs to make connections.
•
A team had an idea but didn't know if it was unique, so they used Market Mining to examine the competition.
•
A company had a piece of equipment with lots of excess capacity and no ideas for filling it. We did Market Mining
to find out what this type of equipment was being used for all over the world - used it as stimulus and invented
ideas.
•
A customer calls up a company with what seems like an impossible request. The team pulls out TRIZ to see if they
could get stimulus and create a win-win solution for the customer.
•
A team does not know what types of ideas to pursue for growth. So, we plot any existing projects on the Growth
Model and identify a need to focus on New Customers since all ideas were focused on existing customers.
•
A team was absolutely stuck with inventing ideas after vetting and killing a whole stack. We pulled out Visual
Analogy and started free associating on random images for fresh thinking - it got us past our roadblock.
•
A team has a bank of existing resources (skills and equipment) inside that they want to take advantage of for new
streams of revenue. The internal Black Belt made a 666 matrix with one column of Existing Resources, one of
Customers, and one of less related stimulus like trends and insights.
•
The team has a product that already exists but need to find fresh ways of Marketing its benefits. They do a
Benchmarking Matrix to find out where they are unique versus the competition so they can craft a meaningfully
unique claim that points out where they beat the competition.
•
A team was scanning the Requests for Invention and found one that they responded to resulting in a new European
customer. (first time exporting)
•
A company has a technology but no market for it. They define the project in Labs with one customer, then Fail
FAST, Fail CHEAP to see if there is interest and if the math works. The answer is no - so they change the customer
and try again. The answer is no - so they change the customer and try again. And so on until they seem to find the
right balance of Customer Appeal, Product Reality and Profit Formula.
•
The project leader is stuck on how to communicate his idea. We pull out the Marketing Message checklist and get
the prompt that says to communicate the WOW of the idea in 5 words or less. This proves to be an effective tool
when boiling down an idea for clarity.
•
A company needs to double production on 5 parts. The whole production team gets together for an hour in small
groups to mind map and write ideas on yellow cards. The team talks through ideas and selects a few to try. They
assign a leader for each and post the yellow cards on the wall on a sticky pad marker board. The project leader
writes down what they learned as they try to implement their solution.
•
In one company I know, the sales rep worked from home. The Manager and the sales rep decided to use Labs to stay
connected with the sales reps work each week. They did an update call every single week to catch up on the learning
and events from the week as well as look forward to the events coming up. It became a tool stay connected.
•
A company’s ideas were unfocused and “average.” The CEO made the people put numbers in all ideas- for new
products or process improvements. If they could not make them specific and numeric - the effort was killed.
Page 27
•
Morning meetings would often spin out of control, when a topic came up people would mangle it to get their 2
cents in but no progress was made. Using Mind Dump and splitting into small groups transformed a group grope
into an actionable session with real solutions being offered - rather than more complaints.
•
A team didn't know if it would be worth it for them to launch a new and innovative product with their limited
marketing budget, so they used the sales forecast tool to see what their forecast was with medium and high
marketing support - and determined whether it was worth it on Medium support.
•
A team didn't know if consumers would be interested in their new product idea, so they went to the local mall
and surveyed 50 people to see what they liked, didn't like, ideal price points, etc. ...
•
In countless sessions where I have had companies attempt to express a "new" technology or product idea,
completely out of the context of Innovation Engineering, I have had them re-focus on the pitch: Customer,
Problem, Promise, Proof, with great results.
•
A company has a product that isn't selling, so they used the Customer Concept card to re-think the product from
the customer's perspective.
•
A tech client had a "gut feeling" about the best market for their product, used Math game plan to find more
profitable opening markets.
•
A company we are working with is trying to increase throughput through their machine shop. We had a
discussion on waste and then used a mind map. It engaged the team in helping to identify where they are
experiencing it. The map made it clear where they need to start focusing some improvement activities.
•
A company created a Holding Hopper for yellow cards that have potential but there is no current room in the
pipeline due to limited resources. As ideas move out of the Define stage, Holding Hopper ideas are released as
projects.
•
A university held a morning symposium with about a hundred faculty involved and interested in online and
hybrid courses. The leader was looking for the issues faculty had in several areas and new approaches to solve
them, but I only had about 90 minutes. I started with large group brainwriting - We set up 6 flip charts, each with
a topic heading (see the attachment). The participants were given about 15 minutes to visit each flip chart and
write down issues associated with each topic. We then used multi-voting to narrow the identified issues down to
the top ones in each topic area. (I've used brainwriting in corporate strategic planning sessions with over 200
participants, works GREAT and very fast!) We broke the participants into 6 groups, each focusing on a topic
area. I then ran a Takeover Time session to generate outside-the-box solutions to the threats and issues. Each
participant then did a yellow card. We concluded with a quick presentation about death threats, and each
participant getting input from others and documenting the death threats on the yellow card. The head of the
University's adult & distance learning, was thrilled with the results, and took all the yellow cards to his advisory
committee meeting immediately after the session...
•
Do the Math. I was doing a JumpStart with a client and as often happens, people resoundingly voted for one
particular idea (a "buddy system") that just FELT good to everyone. The CEO was even ecstatic because in the
week prior he had already decided that that was his go-to idea. However, we put it in IELabs and did Fermi
estimates on retained revenue and cost/time to implement. $20K was not a compelling number to go forward
with the idea and they killed it and moved onto to something else everyone loves.
Page 28
•
A project leader got lots of negative feedback from her team on her idea, which she loved, and they basically
dictated what it should be. They all had more authority than her. So we did an A/B Fail FAST, Fail CHEAP test of
both concepts to the final decision maker and found that actually a combination of the two ideas was the most
preferable. Testing eliminated lots of debate.
•
We needed new marketing ideas for our organization, which has a new focus. I used Lawbreaker and Do One
Thing Great and was able to jolt us out of our normal in ways that exceeded my expectations! The energy in the
room was great!
•
I used Mind Mapping with another unit of our organization to help them define a marketing message for their
eCAR project. The unexpected result was that the group leader realized that the things that were on their Web site
currently were incorrect.
•
I recently used Gauntlet, Osborne Checklist and Lawbreaker on a home project (and homeWORK project) where I
needed to find ideas on what I called "new old furniture" - basically my family is growing so quickly that I cannot
keep up, but I don't want to spend a ton of money on storage and seating, so I needed ways to repurpose things or
build things inexpensively. I got some great ideas.
•
An endless parade of companies/inventors/entrepreneurs come to our New Product Development Lab at Boise
State with the next great idea. Our NPD Team has begun to use IE tools to "Filter, Focus & Verify". 1. Filter - Use
Concept Card as a "hurdle" to see if client is willing to put some work into capturing idea essentials. 2. Focus Concept Card helps client and our team focus on idea essentials. Is idea meaningfully unique, is there a market....?
3. Verify - Working through the concept card helps client and our team verify that it is worth moving forward.
•
An organization was facing a move to a new facility, but deciding on the right choice was linked to a strategy
decision about the future direction of the company. We used a CREATE session with staff and the Board of
Directors to make a decision. The option they all loved did not pencil out from a math point of view, but gave us
the inspiration to make a move that accomplished the goal, but in a different way.
•
I am currently in second session of our ExporTech 2012 program and it struck me that we could use Pitch Packet
to give companies & coaches a standard methodology for doing their product/market work. Companies had
homework assignment to perfect product pitch and select market(s). Results were a bit loose. Didn't hear much
about the math.
•
Working with a client to understand if customers understood and liked the idea. Instead of debating, they went to
the shop and made an FFFC looks-like prototype and took it to a local Lion's Club meeting (many of their target
FDM types) to get feedback. And while the feedback was good - the process of making the prototype also helped
them recognize a manufacturability death threat. So they archived the original idea, but the death threat created a
new idea to work on - which launched 9 months later and is now one of their fastest growing products.
•
SKU proliferation was a problem for a client (think jam...). We did a variant on "do one thing great" - culled the
product line by almost 50%, and then they raised the price on what was left. Total sales - and profitability - went
up.
•
Helping clients "Run a Research Test" can help them and us get a better feel for the actual feasibility of an idea.
This is similar to the Black Belt Commercialize homework assignment where we have to select either the (1) Idea
Starter or (2) Problem Survey Question Template to solicit feedback from survey respondents. I believe this helps
our clients gain CLARITY along with is the idea selected feasible for the target market(s) selected!
Page 29
•
CEO used pitch sheet to clarify & focus thinking around a pitch to his bank for a loan (to grow a new product line).
•
Two state agencies were considering merging some of their services. We facilitated a full day meeting of the two
agencies and used the Innovation Assessment (for each group), VIO/VIP and create exercises to begin a dialogue and
capture ideas.
•
This is a decision making tool. A business owner used to have to make every decision in the business. His folks
looked to him on where and when to buy toilet paper. As they got involved in IE, they felt empowered, and he felt
the relief, of them starting to make the decisions. They now either 'just do it', or come to him with the options
thought out, and what the death threats are. His life is now much easier- and he can focus on the big stuff.
•
A small company ran a Merwyn test, wanting to use the numbers to validate his product, message, etc. and use this
information as part of the information for his bank. An unexpected benefit of the process was contact with several
overseas individuals and companies that were interested in learning more about his product for their use.
•
I often use the Flesch-Kincaid grade level calculator when working with teams as we try to simplify and clarify the
message. The idea is not so much to get frustrated by not being at a 5th grade level, but rather to get excited when
we can make changes that move us toward that goal. It's a fast and cheap way to do a cycle of learning and
improvement.
•
For strategic planning... start with SWOT and then use a mind map. Also during a strategic planning session, take
over time is especially helpful to open thinking for current plan organization. I find myself formalizing a lot of the
innovation that goes into everyday work by using the tools at the right time.
•
A two-step marketing client wants to develop and grow a dealer network. We ran a jumpstart with them and setup a
project in Labs. We found that the mind map tool was very useful in capturing the diverse thinking of 9 attendees
and focusing a direction
•
The grade level calculator is GREAT for all communications, period!
•
A team is stuck on making a decision - They use musical chairs to look from all angles and then decide.
•
Use IELabs Requests for Advice to help build your supply chain. If it is not clear your company and current
suppliers can help solve a problem you have, post a public Request for Advice. You might find a new supplier.
Successes have been awesome.
•
A company had a challenge with a current project. They posted a private Requests for Advice to encourage others to
help by posting what they know, but also specifically with mining help.
•
A company had a project at a stand still. They invited a team of folks to do just 30 minutes of mining and then
getting together to do some mind-mapping.
•
A company needed to problem solve an existing idea. They wanted the offering to do one thing but not give up
another. They reinvented how the product worked using TRIZ.
•
A company needed to engage many people’s views into an idea to increase the chances that everyone would support
it. Rather than using a big group discussion they used Gauntlet to quickly capture everyone’s views in an actionable
form.
Page 30
Attachment VI: Contributing Resources
Cycles to Mastery
Betts, S. C. (2008). TEACHING AND ASSESSING BASIC CONCEPTS TO ADVANCED APPLICATIONS:
USING BLOOM'S TAXONOMY TO INFORM GRADUATE COURSE DESIGN. Academy Of Educational
Leadership Journal, 12(3), 99-106.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring.
Educational Leadership, 41(8), 4.
Booker, M. (2007). A Roof without Walls: Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy and the Misdirection of American
Education. Academic Questions, 20(4), 347-355. doi:10.1007/s12129-007-9031-9
Brandt, R. J. (1985). On Talent Development: A Conversation with Benjamin Bloom. Educational Leadership, 43(1),
33.
Bümen, N. (2007). Effects of the Original Versus Revised Bloom's Taxonomy on Lesson Planning Skills: A Turkish
Study Among Pre-Service Teachers. International Review Of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift Für
Erziehungswissenschaft, 53(4), 439-455. doi:10.1007/s11159-007-9052-1
Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing Achievement Gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S. Bloom's "Learning for Mastery". Journal
Of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 8-31.
Halawi, L. A., McCarthy, R. V., & Pires, S. (2009). An Evaluation of E-Learning on the Basis of Bloom's
Taxonomy: An Exploratory Study. Journal Of Education For Business, 84(6), 374-380.
KRATHWOHL, D. R., & ANDERSON, L. W. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock and the Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy.
Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 64-65. doi:10.1080/00461520903433562
Odhabi, H. (2007). Investigating the impact of laptops on students’ learning using Bloom's learning taxonomy.
British Journal Of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1126-1131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00730.x
Shahzad, S., Qadoos, A., Badshah, S., Muhammad, H., & Ramzan, S. M. (2011). Analytical Study of Question
Papers on Bloom Taxonomy. Interdisciplinary Journal Of Contemporary Research In Business, 3(8), 336-345.
Wen-Chih, C., Hsuan-Che, Y., Shih, T. K., & Chap, L. R. (2009). Using S-P Chart and Bloom Taxonomy to Develop
Intelligent Formative Assessment Tool. International Journal Of Distance Education Technologies, 7(4), 1-16. doi:
10.4018/jdet.2009062401
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2009). Was Bloom's Taxonomy Pointed in the Wrong Direction?. Phi Delta Kappan,
91(4), 56-61.
Online Learning
BERGAN, J.R., SLADECZEK, I.E., SCHWARZ, R.D. & SMITH, A.N. (1991) Effects of a measurement and
planning system on kindergartners' cognitive development and educational programming, American Educational
Research Journal, 28, pp. 683-714.
BUTLER, R. (1988) Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation; the effects of task-involving and egoinvolving evaluation on interest and performance, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, pp. 1-14.
Page 31
Chan, C., Tam, V. L., & Li, C. (2011). A comparison of MCQ assessment delivery methods for student engagement
and interaction used as an in-class formative assessment. International Journal Of Electrical Engineering Education,
48(3), 323-337.
Chang, M. M. (2007). Enhancing web-based language learning through self-monitoring. Journal Of Computer
Assisted Learning, 23(3), 187-196. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00203.x
Chen, C. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path guidance. Computers &
Education, 51(2), 787-814. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2007.08.004
Ching-Huei, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2007). The Effect of Web-Based Question Prompts on Scaffolding Knowledge
Integration and Ill-Structured Problem Solving. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 39(4), 359-375.
Cook, D. A., Beckman, T. J., Thomas, K. G., & Thompson, W. G. (2008). Adapting Web-based Instruction to
Residents’ Knowledge Improves Learning Efficiency. JGIM: Journal Of General Internal Medicine, 23(7), 985-990.
doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0541-0
Cooperman, R. (2011). MASTERY LEARNING in the Adult Classroom. T+D, 65(6), 52-57.
Crippen, K. J., & Earl, B. L. (2007). The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on
performance, problem solving, and self-efficacy. Computers & Education, 49(3), 809-821.
Du, J., Yu, C., & Olinzock, A. A. (2011). ENHANCING COLLABORATIVE LEARNING: IMPACT OF
QUESTION PROMPTS DESIGN FOR ONLINE DISCUSSION. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 53(1), 28-41.
FERNANDES, M. & FONTANA, D. (1996) Changes in control beliefs in Portuguese primary school pupils as a
consequence of the employment of self-assessment strategies, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, pp.
301-313.
FREDERIKSEN, J.R. & WHITE, B.J. (1997) Reflective assessment of students' research within an inquiry-based
middle school science curriculum, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AERA Chicago 1997.
FUCHS, L.S. & FUCHS, D. (1986) Effects of systematic formative evaluation: a meta-analysis, Exceptional
Children, 53, pp. 199-208.
Jordi, R. (2011). Reframing the Concept of Reflection: Consciousness, Experiential Learning, and Reflective
Learning Practices. Adult Education Quarterly, 61(2), 181-197.
MARTINEZ, J.G.R. & MARTINEZ, N. C. (1992) Re-examining repeated testing and teacher effects in a remedial
mathematics course, British journal of Educational Psychology, 62, pp. 356-363.
Nelson, B. (2007). Exploring the Use of Individualized, Reflective Guidance In an Educational Multi-User Virtual
Environment. Journal Of Science Education & Technology, 16(1), 83-97. doi:10.1007/s10956-006-9039-x
Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2005). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reXection: A case of
information seeking on the Web. ScienceDirect, 49(Computers & Education), 214-229.
Saito, H., & Miwa, K. (2007). Construction of a learning environment supporting learners’ reflection: A case of
information seeking on the Web. Computers & Education, 49(2), 214-229.
SCHUNK, D.H. (1996) Goal and self-evaluative influences during children's cognitive skill learning, American
Educational Research Journal, 33, pp. 359-382.
Page 32
Shen, P., Lee, T., & Tsai, C. (2007). Applying Web-Enabled Problem-Based Learning and Self-Regulated Learning
to Enhance Computing Skills of Taiwan’s Vocational Students: a Quasi-Experimental Study of a Short-Term
Module. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 5(2), 147-156.
Trivette, C., Dunst, C., Hamby, D., & O'Herin, C. (2009). Characteristics and Consequences of Adult Learning
Methods and Strategies. Research Brief, 3(1), 1-33.
Tsang-Hsiung, L., Pei-Di, S., & Chia-Wen, T. (2008). Applying Web-Enabled Problem-Based Learning and SelfRegulated Learning to Add Value to Computing Education in Taiwan's Vocational Schools. Journal Of Educational
Technology & Society, 11(3), 13-25.
Tsang-Hsiung, L., Pei-Di, S., & Chia-Wen, T. (2008). Enhancing Computing Skills of Low-Achieving Students via
E-Learning: A Design Experiment of Web-Based, Problem-Based Learning and Self-Regulated Learning.
Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 431-436.
Vonderwell, S. (2004). Assessing Online Learning and Teaching: Adapting the Minute Paper. Techtrends: Linking
Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 48(4), 29-31.
Wang, K. H., Wang, T. H., Wang, W. L., & Huang, S. C. (2006). Learning styles and formative assessment strategy:
enhancing student achievement in Web-based learning. Journal Of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(3), 207-217. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00166.x
WHITING, B., VAN BURGH, J.W. & RENDER, G.F. (1995) Mastery learning in the classroom, paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the AERA San Francisco 1995, available from ERIC ED382688.
Innovation Engineering Fundamentals
The Articles That Support the Innovation Engineering Body of Knowledge
The articles referenced are a combination of laboratory experiments, marketplace experiments, and secondary data
analyses of real-world results. I prefer studies that are conducted in real-world situations. However, in some cases
the noise and chaos of everyday life make laboratory studies the preferred research methodology.
Statistical data, impartially analyzed, allows us to separate illusions from reality. With statistics, we can quantify the
likelihood that what we're observing is a reproducible and reliable truth versus a coincidental one-time random
event.
Casino gambling shows what can happen to our human decision-making abilities when random events become
mixed up with long-term trends. When we win, we often draw cause-and-effect conclusions that lead us to false
truths about the factors that put a few bucks in our pocket. In our excitement, we try to make it happen again—
whether by using a certain slot machine, standing in a particular location at the roulette table, or wearing a certain
pair of so-called lucky socks. But in chasing these false truths, we quickly lose what we’ve won and then some. The
long-term, statistical edge of the casinos is reproducible. Our short-term hunch is not.
Sir Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” In the case of
Innovation Engineering this was literally true, as academic journals in the fields of sales, marketing, and psychology
were explored.
Well over two thousand academic articles as potential sources for Scientific Advice. Every month brilliant
breakthroughs are published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Sadly, except for a lucky few that cross over to the
popular press, awareness of these research findings never reaches the front-line business people who could really use
them to grow their businesses.
Page 33
A primary criteria in selecting research articles to reference were their practical application to front-line sales
and marketing managers.
Academic articles were supplemented by results of Eureka! Ranch research efforts. Original research efforts
included analysis of commercially available data, like the panel data collected by IRI (Information Resources, Inc.)
on the purchasing behavior of some fifty thousand households on over nine thousand products.
Original research also involved analysis of proprietary data sets. One such study involved the factors that separate
new products that survive long term (for five-plus years) from those that fail and are killed (discontinued by the
manufacturer). This study involved 901 new products and is called the Darwin 900 in honor of the famous naturalist
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection—that is, survival of the fittest.
Proprietary Data Sets
Darwin 900
The Darwin 900 is a study conducted by Dr. Chris Stormann and Doug Hall tracking the survival rate of 901
products from their initial introduction over a period of five years.
In the development of this data set, products were removed that were seasonal, short-term promotions or were
potentially undercapitalized efforts by small or start-up companies. Thus by their nature, products in the Darwin 900
were branded products from major consumer products companies. The products in this data set comprised a cross
section of the grocery category and included food and beverages, health and beauty aids, and cleaning products.
One of the greatest challenges in working with this data was agreeing to a reliable definition of success versus
failure. In other studies success was typically a self-reported response by the manufacturers (see Cooper and
Kleinschmidt, 1993). However, as the old corollary warns, one company’s definition of success is another’s failure,
so I desired a more real-world definition.
After considering many options, we settled on a Darwinian survival definition. We defined success as still being in
production and distribution after five years. We can’t say for sure that all products that are still on the shelf are
successful for their manufacturers. However, it is a reasonable assumption that those that were discontinued were
unsuccessful.
To determine if the products were alive or dead, reseasrchers visited major chain grocery stores. If the products were
not found, we then checked the brand or corporate Web site, or in cases where additional uncertainty existed we
called the corporation directly.
The general analysis method utilized for the Darwin 900 was to score the products on a secondary variable and then
use t-tests to quantify significant differences between products that were still alive (on the shelf) versus those that
were dead (had been discontinued). Having determined statistical significance, we conducted a secondary sorting to
provide the simplified description of results for this book. The process involved sorting the concepts into tertiles
based on the secondary variable. Then the percentage surviving was calculated within each of the three groups, and
the results from the top versus bottom tertile group were indexed. Thus, if 45 percent of the products in the top
tertile survived and 30 percent in the bottom tertile survived, we reported that you had a 50 percent greater chance of
success by following the researched approach.
The primary source of the secondary data was ratings of marketing materials content by multiple raters on more than
two hundred archetype attributes related to Meaningful Marketing versus Mindless Marketing dimensions (for
example, the number of benefits promised). The raters were validated for standardized accuracy and reliability.
Another source of secondary data was consumer research results. This data had been gathered among a nationally
representative set of consumers within the first few weeks of introduction. Consumers rated the products in concept
form from either the original marketing materials, package copy, point-of-sales copy, or print advertising, on such
Page 34
variables as purchase interest, product uniqueness, and price sensitivity. This data was utilized to calculate the
impact of Meaningful versus Mindless Marketing persuasion. Specifically, the difference was empirically derived as
the combination of purchase interest and uniqueness perception scores from consumer ratings. We then looked at the
significance of various levels of each archetype trait that comprised the top and bottom 10 percent of the Meaningful
difference distribution. Concepts in the top 10 percent are defined as Meaningful, the bottom 10 percent as Mindless
Marketing Tricks. In the case of the Mindless Marketing focused concepts the primary customer selling points were
the classic Mindless Marketing approaches of “foot in the door” (low initial price) and “consistency and
authority” (leveraging a major brand name).
Scanner 9000 The Scanner 9000 is a study by the Merwyn Technology division of the Eureka! Ranch. This data set
utilizes information from the 1999 marketing fact book Consumer Knowledge Suite produced by IRI (Information
Resources, Inc., Chicago, IL). It contains annual purchasing data from some fifty thousand households that are
provided with an in-home UPC scanner. The analysis conducted here utilized 9,804 carefully screened products. The
data was analyzed by subcategories, categories, and brand basis, then evaluated by multiple regression to compare
the relative importance of standardized regression coefficients for various marketplace variables of interest.
Abraham, M. M., and L. M. Lodish. “Getting the Most out of Advertising and Promotion.” Harvard Business
Review, 30:3 (May–June 1990), pp. 50–60.
Adaval, R., and K. B. Monroe. “Automatic Construction and Use of Contextual Information for Product and Price
Evaluations.” Journal of Consumer Research, 28:4 (March 2002), pp. 572–588.
Ailawadi, K. L., and S. A. Neslin. “The Effect of Promotion on Consumption: Buying More and Consuming It
Faster.” Journal of Marketing Research, 35:3 (August 1998), pp. 390–398.
Ailawadi, K. L., D. R. Lehmann, and S. A. Neslin. “Market Response to a Major Policy Change in the Marketing
Mix: Learning from Procter & Gamble’s Value Pricing Strategy.” Journal of Marketing, 65:1 (January 2001), pp.
44–61.
Alba, J. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. “Knowledge Calibration: What Consumers Know and What They Think They
Know.” Journal of Consumer Research, 27:2 (September 2000), pp. 123–156.
Albion, Mark. Making a Life, Making a Living (New York: Warner Books, 2000), p.17.
Alpert, F. H., M. A. Kamins, and J. L. Graham. “An Examination of Reseller Buyer Attitudes Toward Order of
Brand Entry.” Journal of Marketing, 56:3 (July 1992), pp. 25–37.
Alwitt, L. F. “What Do People Mean When They Talk About Advertising?” Eds. L. Percy and A. G. Woodside.
Advertising and Consumer Psychology (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983), pp. 273–286.
Anderson, R. E. “Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product
Performance.” Journal of Marketing Research, 10:1 (February 1973), pp. 38–44.
Anderson, R. E. “Personal Selling and Sales Management in the New Millennium.” Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 16:4 (Fall 1996), pp. 17–32.
Anschuetz, N. “Why a Brand’s Most Valuable Consumer Is the Next One It Adds.” Journal of Advertising Research,
42:1 (January–February 2002), pp. 15–22.
Arndt, J. “A Test of the Two-Step Flow in Diffusion of a New Product.” Eds. H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 331-342.
Page 35
Aronson, E., and J. Mills. “The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group.” Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 59 (1959), pp. 177–181.
Babakus, E., D. W. Cravens, M. Johnston, and W. C. Moncrief. “The Role of Emotional Exhaustion in Sales Force
Attitude and Behavior Relationships.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27:1 (January 1999), pp.58–
70.
Baker, J., A. Parasuraman, D. Grewal, and G. B. Voss. “The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on
Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions.” Journal of Marketing, 66:2 (April 2002), pp. 120–141.
Bedell, G. “Persuading People to Buy Your Product.” Incentive, 175:2 (February 2001), pp. 70–71.
Bettman, J. R., and C. W. Park. “Effects of Prior Knowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Process on
Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (December 1980), pp. 234–
248.
Bettman, J. R., M. F. Luce, and J. W. Payne. “Constructive Consumer Choice Processes.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 25:3 (December 1998), pp. 187–217.
Boatwright, P., and J. C. Nunes. “Reducing Assortment: An Attribute-Based Approach.” Journal of Marketing, 65:3
(July 2001), pp. 50–63.
Bodenhausen, G. V. “Stereotypes as Judgmental Heuristics: Evidence of Circadian Variations in Discrimination.”
Psychological Science, 1:5 (September 1990), pp. 319–322.
Bolton, Lisa E., Luk Warlop, Joseph W. Alba, "Consumer Perceptions of Price (Un)Fairness," Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol.29, (March 2003), pp. 474-491.
Boyd, T. C., and C. H. Mason. “The Link Between Attractiveness of ‘Extrabrand’Attributes and the Adoption of
Innovations.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27:3 (July 1999), pp. 306–319.
Brock, T. C., and S. Shavitt. “Cognitive-Response Analysis in Advertising.” Eds. L. Percy and A. G. Woodside.
Advertising and Consumer Psychology (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983), pp. pp. 91-116.
Brown, S. P., W. L. Cron, and J. W. Slocum, Jr. “Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational
Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance.” Journal of Marketing, 62:4 (October 1998), pp. 88–98.
Burn, S. W. “Social Psychology and the Stimulation of Recycling Behaviors: The Block Leader Approach.” Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (1991), pp.611–629.
Bushman, B. J. “The Effects of Apparel on Compliance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14:3
(September1988), pp. 459–467.
Bushman, B. J., and A. M. Bonacci. “Violence and Sex Impair Memory for Television Ads.” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87:3 (June 2002), pp. 557–564.
Calder, B. “Cognitive Consistency and Consumer Behavior.” Eds. H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 247–263.
Campbell, Margaret C., "Perceptions of Price Unfairness: Antecedents and Consequences" Journal of Marketing
Research," Vol.XXXVI (May 1999, pp.187-199.
Campbell, Margaret C., "Why did you do that? The important role of inferred motive in perceptions of price
fairness," Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol.8, No. 2, 1999, pp.145-152.
Page 36
Carpenter, G. S., and K. Nakamoto. “Consumer Preference Formation and Pioneering Advantage.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 26:3 (August 1989), pp. 285–298.
Carpenter, G. S., and R. Glazer. “Meaningful Brands From Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on
Irrelevant Attributes.” Journal of Marketing Research, 31:3 (August 1994), pp. 339–350.
Chaiken, S. “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37:8 (1979), pp. 1387–1397.
Chandy, Rajesh K., Jaideep C. Prabhu, Kersi D. Antia, "What Will the Future Bring? Dominance, Technology
Expectations, and Radical Innovation," Journal of Marketing, Vol.67 (July2003), pp.1-18.
Charlett, D., R. Garland, and N. Marr. “How Damaging Is Negative Word of Mouth?” Marketing Bulletin, 6 (May
1995), pp. 42–50.
Church, A. H. “Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 57
(1993), pp. 62–79.
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: Science and Practice (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001), pp. 75-80, 148-168.
Cialdini, R. B., and K.V.L. Rhoads. “Human Behavior and the Marketplace.” Marketing Research, 13:3 (Fall 2001),
pp. 9–13.
Cialdini, R. B., J. E. Vincent, et al. “Reciprocal Concessions Procedure for Inducing Compliance: The Door-in-theFace Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31:2 (1975), pp. 206–215.
Cialdini, R. B., R. J. Borden, et al. “Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (Football) Field Studies.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 34:3 (1976), pp. 366–375.
Clancy, K. J., and R. S. Shulman. Marketing Myths That Are Killing Business: The Cure for Death Wish Marketing
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 275–278.
Cooper, R. G., and E. J. Kleinschmidt. “Major New Products: What Distinguishes the Winners in the Chemical
Industry?” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10:2 (March 1993), pp. 90–111.
Cox, D., and A. D. Cox. “Beyond First Impressions: The Effects of Repeated Exposure on Consumer Liking of
Visually Complex and Simple Product Designs.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30:2 (2002), pp.
119–130.
Cox, D., and A. D. Cox. “Communicating the Consequences of Early Detection: The Role of Evidence and
Framing.” Journal of Marketing, 65:3 (July 2001), pp. 91–103.
Daghfous, N., J. V. Petrof, and F. Pons. “Values and Adoption of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Study.” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 16:4 (1999), pp. 314–331.
Data Source: Digital Scriptorium. “Emergence of Advertising in America: 1850–1920.” http://
scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/eaa/.
Data Source: Eureka! Ranch. Based on marketplace scanner data analysis of 9804 established brands: Merwyn
Technology Internal Data Set: Scanner 9000 Study (Eureka! Ranch, 2001).
Data Source: Information Resources, Inc. Client Study: How Advertising Works for New Products, (Chicago, 2001).
Page 37
Data Source: Information Resources, Inc. InFocus Report: New Product Trends 2002 Study (Chicago, 2002), pp. 6–
7.
Data Source: Sahr, R. “Inflation Conversion Factors for Dollars 1665 to Estimated 2013.” http://oregonstate.edu/
dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/sahr.htm.
Davies, James C., "Toward A Theory of Revolution," American Sociological Review, Volume 27, Number 1,
(February, 1962) pp. 5-19.
Donavan, D. Todd, Tom J. Brown & John C. Mowen, "Internal Benefits of Service-Worker Customer Orientation:
Job Satisfaction, Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors." Journal of Marketing, Vol.68 (Januar
2004), pp. 25-146.
Doob, A. N., and A. E. Gross. “Status of Frustrator as an Inhibitor of Horn-Honking Responses.” Journal of Social
Psychology, 76 (1968), pp. 213–218.
Doob, A., J. M. Carlsmith, et al. “Effect of Initial Selling Price on Subsequent Sales.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 11:4 (1969), pp. 345–350.
Dowling, G. R., and M. Uncles. “Do Customer Loyalty Programs Really Work?” Sloan Management Review, 38:4
(Summer 1997), pp. 71–82.
Doyle, S. X., and G. T. Roth. “Selling and Sales Management in Action: The Use of Insight Coaching to Improve
Relationship Selling.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12:1 (Winter 1992), pp. 59–64.
Drolet, A. “Inherent Rule Variability in Consumer Choice: Changing Rules for Change’s Sake.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 29:3 (December 2002), pp. 293–305.
Dwyer, S., J. Hill, and W. Martin. “An Empirical Investigation of Critical Success Factors in the Personal Selling
Process for Homogenous Goods.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 20:3 (Summer 2000), pp.
151–159.
Edell, J. A., and R. Staelin. “The Information Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 10 (June 1983), pp. 45–61.
Enriquez, Juan,. As The Future Catches You. (New York: Crown Business, 2001).
Estell, L. “Loyalty Lessons.” Incentive, 176:11 (Nov 2002), pp. 38–41.
Extrinsic Cue Effects on Consumers’ Risk Perceptions.”
Feltham, T. S. “Leaving Home: Brand Purchase Influences on Young Adults.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15:4
(1998), pp. 372–385.
Garrity, K., and D. Degelman. “Effects of Server Introduction on Restaurant Tipping.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 20:2 (1990), pp. 168–172.
Gartner, W. B., and R. J. Thomas. “Factors Affecting New Product Forecasting Accuracy in New Firms.” Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 10:1 (January 1993), pp. 35–52.
Goff, B. G., D. N. Bellenger, and C. Stojack. “Cues to Consumer Susceptibility to Salesperson Influence:
Implications for Adaptive Retail Selling.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14:2 (Spring 1994),
pp. 25–39.
Page 38
Golder, P. N., and G. J. Tellis. “Will It Ever Fly? Modeling the Takeoff of Really New Consumer Durables.”
Marketing Science, 16:3 (1997), pp. 256–270.
Gonzales, M. H., J. M. Davis, et al. “Interactional Approach to Interpersonal Attraction.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 44:6 (1983), pp. 1192–1197.
Goodman, Nathan G., ed. A Benjamin Franklin Reader (New York, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1971) pp. 118–
131.
Gorn, G. J. “The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach.” Journal
of Marketing, 46:1 (Winter 1982), pp. 94–101.
Gouillart, F. J., and F. D. Sturdivant. “Spend a Day in the Life of Your Customers.” Harvard Business Review, 72:1
(January/February 1994), pp. 116–125.
Greenleaf, E. A., and D. R. Lehmann. “Reasons for Substantial Delay in Consumer Decision Making.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 22:2 (September 1995), pp.186–199.
Gruner, S. “Reward Good Customers.” Inc. Magazine (November 1996), p. 84.
Gupta, S. “Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What, and How Much to Buy.” Journal of Marketing Research,
25:4 (November 1988), pp. 342–355.
Hall, D. Jump Start Your Business Brain (Cincinnati: Brain Brew Books, 2001).
Hall, D., and D. Wecker. The Maverick Mindset (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997), pp. 207–210.
Hellofs, L. L., and R. Jacobson. “Market Share and Customers’ Perceptions of Quality: When Can Firms Grow Their
Way to Higher Versus Lower Quality?” Journal of Marketing, 63:1 (January 1999), pp. 16–25.
Herrmann, N. The Whole Brain Business Book (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996).
Hite, R. E., and J. A. Bellizzi. “Differences in the Importance
Howard, D. J. “The Influence of Verbal Responses to Common Greetings on Compliance Behavior: The Foot-in-theMouth Effect.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20:14 (1990), pp. 1185–1196.
Howard, D. J., C. Gengler, and A. Jain. “What’s In a Name? A Complimentary Means of Persuasion.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 22 (September 1995), pp. 200–211.
Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth. “A Theory of Buyer Behavior.” Eds. H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 519–540.
Hoyer, W. D. “An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 11 (December 1984), pp. 822–829.
IM, Subin, John P Workman Jr., "Market Orientation, Creativity, and New Product Performance in HighTechnology Firms." Journal of Marketing, Volume 68, April 2004, pp.114-131.
Iyengar, S. S., and M. R. Lepper. “When Choice Is Demotivating: Can
James, J. M., and R. Bolstein. “Large Monetary Incentives and Their Effect on Mail Survey Response Rates.” Public
Opinion Quarterly, 56 (1992), pp. 442–453.
Jap, S. D. “The Strategic Role of the Salesforce in Developing Customer Satisfaction Across the Relationship
Lifecycle.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21:2 (Spring 2001), pp. 95–108.
Page 39
Jones, John Phillip, When Ads Work (New Yord: Lexington Books, 1995)
Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June 1982), pp. 38–46
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14:1 (Winter 1994), pp. 1–15.
Kahle, L. R., D. B. Hall, and M. J. Kosinski. “The Real-Time Response Survey in New Product Research: It’s About
Time.” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14:3 (1997), pp. 234–248.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler, "Fairness as a Contraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in
the Market," The American Economic Review, Vol. 76, No.4 (September 1986), pp.728-741.
Kalyanaram, G., W. T. Robinson, and G. L. Urban. “Order of Market Entry: Established Empirical Generalizations,
Emerging Empirical Generalizations, and Future Research.” Marketing Science, 14:3, Part 2 of 2 (1995), pp. G212–
G221.
Kanouse, D. E. “Explaining Negativity Biases in Evaluation and Choice Behavior: Theory and Research.” Advances
in Consumer Research, 11 (1984), pp. 703–708.
Kearney, T. J. “Frequent Flyer Programs: A Failure in Competitive
Keinan, G. “Decision Making Under Stress: Scanning of Alternatives Under Controllable and Uncontrollable
Threats.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:3 (1987), pp. 639–644.
Keller, E., and J. Berry. The Influentials (New York: The Free Press, 2003), cover.
Keller, K. L., S. E. Heckler, et al. “The Effects of Brand Name Suggestiveness on Advertising Recall.” Journal of
Marketing, 62:1 (January 1998), pp. 42–51.
Keller, P. A., and L. G. Block. “Increasing the Persuasiveness of Fear Appeals: The Effect of Arousal and
Elaboration.” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (March 1996), pp. 448–459.
Keller, S. B., M. Landry, J. Olson, et al. “The Effects of Nutrition Package Claims, Nutrition Facts Panels, and
Motivation to Process Nutrition Information on Consumer Product Evaluations.” Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 16:2 (Fall 1997), pp. 256–269.
Kim, W. Chan, Renee Mauborgne, "Blue Ocean Strategy", Harvard Business Review, October 2004, p80.
Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster. “Post Decision Dissonance at Post Time.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 8:4 (1968), pp. 319–323.
Kotler, P. “Mathematical Models of Individual Buyer Behavior.” Eds. H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973) pp. 541-560
Krugman, H. E. “Why Three Exposures May Be Enough.” Journal of Advertising Research, 12:6 (December 1972),
pp.11–14.
Kuester, S., C. Homburg, and T. S. Robertson. “Retaliatory Behavior to New Product Entry.” Journal of Marketing,
63:4 (October 1999), pp. 90–106.
Lambert, D. M., H. Marmorstein, and A. Sharma. “The Accuracy of Salespersons’ Perceptions of Their Customers:
Conceptual Examination and an Empirical Study.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 10:1 (Winter
1990), pp. 1–9.
Lasn, K. “Ad Spending Predicted for Steady Decline.” Adbusters, 45 (January/February 2003), www.adbusters.org/
magazine/45/articles/ad_spending_predicted_for.html.
Page 40
Lau, G. T., and S. H. Lee. “Consumers Trust in a Brand and the Link to Brand Loyalty.” Journal of Market-Focused
Management, 4 (1999), pp. 341–370.
Lefkowitz, M., R. R. Blake, and J. S. Mouton. “Status Factors in Pedestrian Violation of Traffic Signals.” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955), pp. 704–706.
Leonard, D., and S. Straus. “Putting Your Company’s Whole Brain to Work.” Harvard Business Review, 75:4 (July/
August 1997), pp. 110–121.
Liu, A. H., and M. P. Leach. “Developing Loyal Customers With a Value-Adding Sales Force: Examining Customer
Satisfaction and the Perceived Credibility of Consultative Salespeople.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 21:2 (Spring 2001), pp. 147–156.
Locke, K. D., and L. M. Horowitz. “Satisfaction in Interpersonal Interactions as a Function of Similarity in Level of
Dysphoria.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:5 (May 1990), pp. 823–831.
Lodish, L. M., and M. M. Abraham. “How T.V. Advertising Works: A Meta-Analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable
T.V. Advertising Experiments.” Journal of Marketing Research, 32:2 (May 1995), pp. 125–139.
Lodish, L. M., M. M. Abraham, J. Livelsberger, et al. “A Summary of Fifty-Five In-Market Experimental Estimates
of the Long-Term Effect of TV Advertising.” Marketing Science, 14:3, Part 2 of 2 (1995), pp. G133–G140.
Mack, D., and D. Rainey. “Female Applicants’ Grooming and Personnel Selection.” Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 5:5 (1990), pp. 399–407.
Maidique, M. A., and B. J. Zirger. “A Study of Success and Failure in Product Innovation: The Case of the U.S.
Electronics Industry.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM31:3 4 (November1984), pp. 192–203.
Marketing, 7:1 (Winter 1990), pp. 31–40.
Marks, L. J., and M. A. Kamins. “The Use of Product Sampling and Advertising: Effects of Sequence of Exposure
and Degree of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers’ Belief Strength, Belief Confidence, and Attitudes.”
Journal of Marketing Research,
Marton, B. A. “Mastering the Art of Persuasion.” Harvard Management Communication Letter, 3:7 (July 2000), pp.
4–6.
Matsuno, Ken, John T. Mentzer, & Aysegul Ozsomer, "The Effects of Entrepreneurial Proclivity and Market
Orientation on Business Performance," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 (July 2002), pp. 18-32.
Maxham III, J. G., and R. G. Netemeyer. “A Longitudinal Study of Complaining Customers’ Evaluations of Multiple
Service Failures and Recovery Efforts.” Journal of Marketing, 66:4 (October 2002), pp. 57–71.
McLaughlin, K., and C. Halsall. “Marketing Spending Effectiveness: How to Win in a Complex Environment.”
McKinsey Marketing Practice Working Paper (June 2000).
Mela, C. F., and S. Gupta. “The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 34:2 (May 1997), pp. 248–261.
Mela, C. F., K. Jedidi, et al. “The Long-Term Impact of Promotions on Consumer Stockpiling Behavior.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 35:2 (May 1998), pp. 250–262.
Meyerowitz, B. E., and S. Chaiken. “The Effect of Message Framing on Breast Self-Examination Attitudes,
Intentions, and Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:3 (1987), pp. 500–510.
Page 41
Meyers-Levy, J., and L. A. Peracchio. “Understanding the Effects of Color: How the Correspondence Between
Available and Required Resources Affects Attitudes.” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (September 1995), pp.
121–138.
Meyvis, T., and C. Janiszewski. “Consumers’ Beliefs About Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant
Product Information.” Journal of Consumer Research, 28:4 (March 2002), pp. 618–635.
Milgram, S., L. Bickman, and L. Berkowitz. “Note on the Drawing Power of Crowds of Different Size.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 13:2 (1969), pp. 79–82.
Moriarity, T. “Crime, Commitment, and the Responsive Bystander: Two Field Experiments.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31:2 (1975), pp. 370–376.
Morwitz, V. G., E. Johnson, and D. Schmittlein. “Does Measuring Intent Change Behavior?” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (Jun 1993), pp. 46–61.
Mowen, J. C., and R. B. Cialdini. “On Implementing the Door-in the-Face Compliance Technique in a Business
Context.” Journal of Marketing Research, 17:2 (May 1980), pp. 253–258.
Mukherjee, A., and W. D. Hoyer. “The Effect of Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation.” Journal of Consumer
Research, 28:3 (December 2001), pp. 462–472.
One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing?” Journal of Personality
Pechmann, C., and D. W. Stewart. “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout.” Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, 12 (1988), pp. 285–330.
Percy, L., and J. R. Rossiter. “Mediating Effects of Visual and Verbal Elements in Print Advertising Upon Belief,
Attitude, and Intention Responses.” Eds. L. Percy and A. G. Woodside. Advertising and Consumer Psychology
(Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983), pp. 171–196.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. “Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: Application to Advertising.” Eds. L.
Percy and A. G. Woodside. Advertising and Consumer Psychology (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983), pp.
3–23.
Phillips, D. P. “Airplane Accidents, Murder, and the Mass Media: Towards a Theory of Imitation and Suggestion.”
Social Forces, 58:4 (June 1980), pp. 1001–1024.
Phillips, D. P. “Suicide, Motor Vehicle Fatalities, and the Mass Media: Evidence Toward a Theory of Suggestion.”
American Journal Of Sociology, 84:5 (1979), pp. 1150–1174.
Pieters, Rik, Michel Wedel, "Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictoral, and Text-Size Effects,
Vol. 68 (April 2004), 36-50.
Plank, R. E., D. A. Reid, and. E. B. Pullins. “Methods in Sales Research: Perceived Trust in Business-to-Business
Sales: A New Measure.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 19:3 (Summer 1999), pp. 61–71.
Razran, G.H.S. “Conditioned Response Changes in Rating and Appraising Sociopolitical Slogans.” Psychological
Bulletin, 37 (1940), p. 481.
Razran, G.H.S. “Conditioning Away Social Bias.” Psychological Bulletin, 35 (1938), p. 693.
Reinartz,W. J., and V. Kumar. “On the Profitability of Long-Life Customers in a Noncontractual Setting: An
Empirical Investigation and Implications for Marketing.” Journal of Marketing, 64:4 (October 2000), pp.17–35.
Page 42
Reingen, P. H. “On Inducing Compliance With Requests.” Journal of Consumer Research, 5 (September 1978), pp.
96–102.
Reingen, P. H., and J. B. Kernan. “Compliance With an Interview Request: A Foot-in-the-Door, Self-Perception
Interpretation.” Journal of Marketing Research, 14:3 (August 1977), pp. 365–369.
Robinson, W. T. “Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages: The Case of Industrial Goods Industries.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 25:1 (February 1988), pp. 87–94.
Robinson, W. T., and C. Fornell. “Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages in Consumer Goods Industries.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 22:3 (August 1985), pp. 305–317.
Robinson,W. T. “Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages: The Case of Industrial Goods Industries.” Journal of
Marketing Research, 25:1 (February 1988), pp. 87–94.
Romaniuk, Jenni, Andrew Ehrenberg, Byron Sharp, "Perceptions of Differentiation, Do users see their brand as
different?", Research & Development Initiative Report 17, October 2004.
Roselius, T. “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reduction Methods.” Eds. H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson.
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1973), pp. 55–64.
Russ, F. A., K. M. McNeilly, et al. “Exploring the Impact of Critical Sales Events.” Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 18:2 (Spring 1998), pp. 19–34.
Rust, R. T., C. Moorman, and P. R. Dickson. “Getting Return on Quality: Revenue Expansion, Cost Reduction, or
Both?” Journal of Marketing, 66:4 (Oct 2002), pp. 7–24.
Scammon, D. L. “Information Overload and Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research, 4:3 (1977), pp. 148–155.
Schoormans, J.P.L., R. J. Ortt, and C.J.P.M. de Bont. “Enhancing Concept Test Validity by Using Expert
Consumers.” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12:2 (March 1995), pp.153–162.
Schuster, C. P., and J. E. Danes. “Asking Questions: Some Characteristics of Successful Sales Encounters.” Journal
of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 6:1 (May 1986), pp. 17–27.
Sharma, A., and R. Pillai. “Customers’ Decision-Making Styles and Their Preference for Sales Strategies:
Conceptual Examination and an Empirical Study.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16:1 (Winter
1996), pp. 21–33.
Sharp, Byron, Erica Riebe, John Dawes and Nick Danenberg, :A Marketing Economy of Scale – Big Brands Lose
Less of their Customer Base than Small Brands," Marketing Bulletin, 2002, 13, Research Note 1.
Sherman, S. J. “On the Self-Erasing Nature of Errors of Prediction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39 (1980), pp. 211–221.
Simonson, I., S. Nowlis, and K. Lemon. “The Effect of Local Consideration Sets on Global Choice Between Lower
Price and Higher Quality.” Marketing Science, 12:4 (Fall 1993), pp. 357–376.
Singh, M., S. K. Balasubramanian, and G. Chakraborty. “A Comparative Analysis of Three Communication
Formats: Advertising, Infomercial, and Direct Experience.” Journal of Advertising, 29:4 (Winter 2000), pp. 59–75.
Smith, R. E., and S. D. Hunt. “Attributional Processes in Promotional Situations.” Journal of Consumer Research, 5
(December 1978), pp. 149–158.
Srinivasan, Raja, Gary L. Lilien, & Arvind Rangaswamy, "Technological Opportunism and Radical Technology
Adoption: An Application to E-Business, Journal of Marketing, Vol 66 (July 2002) pp. 47-60.
Page 43
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedicrt E.M., Katrijn Gielens,. "Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New
Consumer Packaged Goods. " Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 30, December 2003, pp. 368-384.
Stieg, B. “Facts of Life.” Men’s Health (March 2003), p. 52.
Strub, P., and S. Herman. “Can the Sales Force Speak for the Customer?” Marketing Research, 5:4 (Fall 1993), pp.
32–35.
Sullivan, M. “Brand Extension and Order of Entry.” Report No. 91-105 (Boston: Marketing Science Institute, 1991).
Supphellen, Magne, Oivind Eismann, Leif E. Hem, "Can advertisements for brand extensions revitalize flagship
products?", International Journal of Advertising, 2004, 23, pp.173-196.
Swan, J. E., and J. J. Nolan. “Gaining Customer Trust: A Conceptual Guide for the Salesperson.” Journal of Personal
Selling and Sales Management, 5:2 (November 1985), pp. 39–48.
Swan, J. E., I. F. Trawick Jr., D. R. Rink, and J. J. Roberts. “Measuring Dimensions of Purchaser Trust of Industrial
Salespeople.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 8:1 (May 1988), pp. 1–9.
Thomas, R. W., G. N. Soutar, and M. M. Ryan. “The Selling Orientation–Customer Orientation (S.O.C.O.) Scale: A
Proposed Short Form.” Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 21:1 (Winter 2001), pp. 63–69.
Till, B. D., and M. Busler. “Matching Products with Endorsers: Attractiveness Versus Expertise.” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 15:6 (1998), pp. 576–586.
Timson, J. “Fliers, Airlines Love Their Point Programs.” The Toronto Globe and Mail (February 1, 2003).
Tracy, B. “Stop Talking . . . and Start Asking Questions.” Sales and Marketing Management, 147:2 (February 1995),
pp. 79–86.
Trout, J. “Differentiate or Die.” Ad Age, November 22, 1999.
Tuan Pham, Michel, Tamar Avnet, "Ideals and Oughts and the Reliance on Affect versus Substance in Persuasion,"
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 30, (March 2004), pp. 503-518.
Tversky, A., and E. Shafir. “Choice Under Conflict: The Dynamics of Deferred Decision.” Psychological Science,
3:6 (November 1992), pp. 358–361.
Urban, G. L., T. Carter, S. Gaskin, and Z. Mucha. “Market Share Rewards to Pioneering Brands: An Empirical
Analysis
Vakratsas, D., and T. Ambler. “How Advertising Works:
Van Heerde, Harald J., Carl F. Mela, and Puneet Manchanda, "The Dynamic Effect of Innovation on Market
Structure," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XLI, (May 2004), 166-183.
Vorhies, D. W., and M. Harker. “The Capabilities and Performance Advantages of Market-Driven Firms: An
Empirical Investigation.” Australian Journal of Management, 25:2 (September 2000), pp. 145–171.
Vorhies, D. W., M. Harker, and C. P. Rao. “The Capabilities and Performance Advantages of Market-Driven Firms.”
European Journal of Marketing, 33:11/12 (1999), pp.1171–1202.
Wansink, B. “Advertising’s Impact on Category Substitution.” Journal of Marketing Research, 31:4 (November
1994), pp. 505–515.
Page 44
Weitz, B. A., and K. D. Bradford. “Personal Selling and Sales Management: A Relationship Marketing Perspective.”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27:2 (April 1999), pp. 241–254.
West, S. G. “Increasing the Attractiveness of College Cafeteria Food: A Reactance Theory Perspective.” Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60:5 (1975), pp. 656–658.
What Do We Really Know?” Journal of Marketing, 63:1 (January 1999), pp. 26–43.
Whittler, T. E. “Eliciting Consumer Choice Heuristics: Sales Representatives’ Persuasion Strategies.” Journal of
Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14:4 (Fall 1994), pp. 41–53.
Williams, G. A., and R. B. Miller. “Change the Way You Persuade.” Harvard Business Review, 80:5 (May 2002), pp.
65-73.
Wilton, P. C., and D. K. Tse. “A Model of Consumer Response to Communication and Product Experiences.” Eds.
L. Percy and A. G. Woodside. Advertising and Consumer Psychology (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1983),
p.315-322.
Wood, S. L., and J. G. Lynch, Jr. “Prior Knowledge and Complacency in New Product Learning.” Journal of
Consumer Research, 29:3 (December 2002), pp. 416–426.
Worchel, S., J. Lee, and A. Adewole. “Effects of Supply and Demand on Ratings of Object Value.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 32:5 (1975), pp. 906–914.
Wotruba, T. R. “The Effect of Goal-Setting on the Performance of Independent Sales Agents in Direct Selling.”
Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 9:1 (Spring 1989), pp. 22–29.
Wyrwicka, W. “Classical Conditioned Reflexes.” Conditioning (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers,
2000), pp. 5–10.
Xia, Lan, Kent B. Monoe, & Jennifer L. Cox, "The Price is Unfair! A Conceptual Framework of Price Fairness
Perceptions," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, (October 2004), pp. 1-15.
Yu, J., and H. Cooper. “A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to Questionnaires.”
Journal of Marketing Research, 20:1 (February 1983), pp. 36–44.
Ziamou, Paschalina, S. Ratneshwar, "Innovations in Product Functionality: When and Why Are Explicit
Comparisons Effective," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, (April 2003), 49-61.
Page 45