Part two of PD&D's exclusive interview with Edward Goldman, senior vice president with Foster-Miller.
Product Design and Development (PD&D) recently sat down with Edward Goldman of Foster-Miller to discuss Direct Innovation—a pioneering approach to creating novel, breakthrough products. The following is the second of a two-part interview with the senior vice president of the Waltham, MA-based product design and development firm.
Click here to read the first part of PD&D's interview with Mr. Goldman.  Edward Goldman, senior vice president of Waltham, MA-based Foster-Miller |
PD&D: Is Open Innovation a thing of the past?
Goldman: Absolutely not. Open Innovation is a necessary, useful tool that allows companies to leverage knowledge and innovations that have already been developed. This process can often save a company expense and time.
Although the payoffs of a breakthrough product through Direct Innovation often far exceed the investment, not all projects require that level of uniqueness. For example, Open Innovation is the smart choice for a company with a product in a saturated market seeking to complete its product portfolio late in the game. In cases like this where there is not a defined market need for a different product; a company can “fit” a serendipitous “find” into its product portfolio.
PD&D: Must companies choose either a Direct or Open Innovation approach to product design and development?
Goldman: No. Foster-Miller’s Commercial Equipment Group has been designing new products for over 50 years and we have seen companies successfully use both Direct and Open Innovation to develop new products.
A balance of the two methods is ideal, and which is best to use depends on the goal at hand, which we just discussed. Projects may even require a combination of Direct and Open Innovation. A common approach is to outsource projects requiring Direct Innovation and internally handle Open Innovation.
PD&D: How do IP rights differ between Direct and Open Innovation?
Goldman: Direct Innovation creates an innovative and unique product and firms must take steps to protect any IP that is created. If the product is designed internally, patents should be filed early in the design process and staff prevented from leaking trade secrets through non-compete agreements. If working with a third-party engineering firm, non-disclosure agreements are essential and the manufacturer should require that all IP be turned over once the project is complete.
With Open Innovation, securing IP rights is not as easy since the final product can be the result of a smorgasbord of technologies from a number of different firms.
Licensing negotiations with a university or an inventor can be lengthy and frustrating. The manufacturer may need to navigate licensing agreements and accept that other products on the market will likely be using similar technology.
PD&D: What advice can you provide to firms on successfully implementing Direct and Open Innovation?
Goldman: A fundamental factor in Direct Innovation is multidisciplinary expertise, which fuels out-of-the-box thinking. Truly innovative products often rely on a multitude of concepts and theories for differentiation and market leadership. A design team with industry-spanning expertise can apply the ideal technology to the product concept. A team of engineers confined to one industry often does not have this pool of knowledge from which to draw, and this can impede finding solutions to complex problems.
The development of new imaging devices provides a good example of the merging of the technology transfer and Direct Innovation concepts. When the obesity epidemic made it difficult for doctors to obtain high-resolution internal imaging of their patients, engineers sought to create a new device. The solution was found in a defense industry technology. To meet the doctors’ need, a device based on military sonar mine detection was developed. This enabled imaging devices to resolve objects at twice the distance of current systems. Similarly, a fetal heart monitoring solution was developed based on the same sonar technology used by the United States to detect enemy submarines.
Another great example is the development of low-fat slow-churned ice cream which provides a good example of the merging of the technology transfer and Direct Innovation concepts. More and more consumers have turned to low-fat food products yet many were dissatisfied with the non-creamy taste of light ice cream options. Unilever sought to create a creamier healthy ice cream, and a protein cloned from the blood of an Arctic Ocean fish provided the answer.
Called an “ice-structuring protein,” this genetic element protects the fish from the freezing temperatures can be used to make ice cream creamier by preventing the growth of ice crystals. The company developed a process to recreate this protein, leading to the launch of new ice cream products to satisfy health- and taste-conscious consumers. (Click here to read more about this process.)
However, while breakthrough products are often the result of ideas from another industry, true innovation can cannibalize product manufacturing firms. This is because it is financially difficult and inefficient for manufacturers to maintain strong knowledge of a variety of disciplines on an internal engineering staff. On the other hand, engineering is the core competency of third-party R&D firms, which can afford to maintain a staff of engineers with multidisciplinary expertise.
With regard to innovation in general, my advice is to hone strong industry relationships and work with experienced engineers. This is because friends and partners in the industry can help mine the field for relevant technologies. In addition, staff with relevant experience will know where to look for new technologies and will be in-the-know on the latest developments.
To contact Edward Goldman call (781) 684-4168 or e-mail him at egoldman@foster-miller.com
ADVERTISEMENT