WO2002019597A2 - Innovation engines - Google Patents

Abstract

A method of managing innovation (200) related data is described. The method includes first, data inputs are received from several sources in step (210). Then the data inputs are qualified in step (225). Next, one or more of the qualified data inputs are selected in step (230). Then, at least one innovation technique is selected. Next, the selected innovation technique is applied to the selected data input in step (235). Several potential solutions would then result from the successful innovation technique in step (240). Next, a second test (245) is applied to each one of the potential solutions in step (250). Then, at least one of potential solutions is selected. Finally, each step in the process and the results thereof are archived in step (260).

Description

INNOVATION ENGINES

RELATED APPLICATIONS This application claims the benefit of U.S. Application No. 09/648,989, filed

August 25, 2000.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates to managing and developing innovation and more specifically methods of generatin Ifg new ideas, managing and organizing information and processes directed toward innovation in any field or industry.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The prior art of innovation management consists of a diverse batchwøϊ-k of ' theories and approaches regarding creativity. One of the earliest processes of developing and stimulating creativity is brainstorming. Alex F. Osborn has been recognized as the father of brainstorming, based upon his seminal book entitled "Applied Imagination: The principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking," Charles Scribner's Sons, (1953). Osborn theorized that creative skills are a dormant talent possessed by most people, that creative skills could be taught and enhanced.

Osborne's original ideas about his "brainstorming" process where initially used to create novel advertising strategies and concepts. Essentially the process was dependant on two characteristics: First, the spontaneous, almost impulsive expression of ideas; and second, withholding judgement or criticism of the ideas presented.

Since 1953 a variety of brainstorming methods have emerged but the methods are not always effective because participants often disregard or are unacquainted with the complete rules. One brainstorming process derived from Osborne's approach is:

1. The group is led by ^facilitator who "peps up" the group. 2. The group or leader decides on a specific problem.

3. All ideas and suggestions are then recorded on a flip chart without argument.

4. A casual atmosphere of fun, creativity, and informality is Ipromotefl. ^■< '.

5. An egalitarian atmosphere of equality where all participants have an • equal rank and ability to speak is established in the beginning.

6. Negative responses, criticism and evaluations are prohibited during the brainstorming.

7. Spontaneous, quick ideas are given as quickly as possible.

8. Facilitator encourages diversity, outlandish ideas, the wilder the better, silly, and unexpected which often lead to surprising new concepts and connections.

9. Ideas are built on other people's ideas but with attribution and credit.

10. Acknowledge that there are no "bad or dumb" ideas. 11. The leader never reacts negatively or favors one idea over another.

12. The facilitator over-rules argument and idea rejection between participants.

13. In brainstorming quantity counts. Generate as many ideas as possible. It is generally realized that the best way to get one good idea is to have many to choose from.

14. Continuing the process until new ideas and suggestions stop emerging' from the group.

15. Review all recorded ideas for possibilities and select the most promising.

Osborn' s brainstorming process and those processes derived from Osbone can be summarized as a spontaneous listing all ideas put forth by a group in response lι 1 W to a given problem or question. Osborn' s processes are generally vie e as. useful , to any brainstorming process, but Osborne's methods are incomplete. More importantly, Osborne's brainstorming methods are but one step in the multiple factors needed to achieve innovation.

The pursuit of innovation as a deliberate, deliverable objective has grown more intense with time. No longer can a major corporation simply wait around hoping that new products, services and ideas will magically appear in a suggestion box. Competition has forced most successful companies to develop methods of actively, cognitively searching for new ideas for products and services. Several ad- hoc tailored organizational approaches and styles of innovation development have emerged.

These innovation development strategies include seeking innovation support from outside sources such as consultants, academia, acquisition, training programs, as well as team driven internal programs. Some of these strategies have been in place for many years and have met with some success. One example is the 3M Company (Minnesota, Mining & Manufacturing Company) and its Quest for Innovation.

3M was a company based on sale of carborundum and abrasive materials for industrial applications. 3M made an incredible turnaround approximately 40 years

ago with its decision to formally encourage innovation. As a result, βiyt has developed a reputation as an innovative company because of the steady stream of new products. The actual model of 3M's process can be summarized as being based on environmental and organizational policy. Other industry competitors have equally talented people, yet 3M seems to have better managed to maximize the innovative contribution of its people. 3M process generally includes:

1. Top management policy endorses and encourages innovation. For example, in 1951, 3M's top management established the 3M Technical Forum to encourage free and active interchange of information and cross fertilization of ideas. 2. Innovation is promoted as a constant quest.

3. Rewards and recognition are given to innovators for their contributions.

4. Permission and the freedom to pursue an innovative idea is given to employees and an employee may use up to 10% or more of his total applied time.

5. There are few if any negative attitudes, denials or criticisms such as "no you can't do that."

6. If the inventor can get one or more people to believe in the idea additional development funding or a budget may be made available. 7. While seed funding is not always be there for the asking the 3M system is permissive and positive.

8. Employees are not punished or fired for an idea that fails or does not work out.

9. Success breeds success and S ^s culture is one of innovation achievement and expectation is established.

Another common approach to fostering innovation is where a company establishes an office of innovation or an equivalent to be the central point of innovation efforts. While sometimes useful, these innovation development approaches can be inconsistent and still leave much to be desired. The individual companies develop many innovation development approaches through much trial and error. Few of these approaches produce a transferable principle that may be repeated or otherwise used by another organization. Further, these strategies are inconsistently applied and many vanish after a key person leaves or a program has been accomplished.

While innovation development is acknowledged as an important technological and economic goal for most companies, innovation development lacks universally established professional principles. There are often as many theories and strategies as there are managers. Further, there is no connecting stracture to direct and organize innovation development more consistently.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A method of managing innovation related data is described. The method includes first, data inputs are received from several sources. Then the data inputs are qualified. Next, one or more of the qualified data inputs are selected. Then, at least one innovation technique is selected. Next, the selected innovation technique is applied to the selected data input. Several potential solutions then result from the innovation technique. Next, a second test is applied to each one of the potential solutions. Then, at least one of potential solutions is selected. Finally, each step in the process and the results thereof are archived. One intended advantage of the invention is to provide a single point access to a consolidated knowledge base of innovation management and innovation techniques. Another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a centrally organized method and apparatus for dynamically managing the innovation , _t- „ , , technique. Yet another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a tool for training personnel in the innovation technique. Still another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a computer enabled method and apparatus for managing the innovation technique. Further intended advantages include interfacing the innovation technique with an organization's existing enterprise resource planning functions. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention is illustrated by way of example and not limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in which like references indicate similar . elements. Fig. 1 illustrates several elements of one embodiment.

Fig. 1 A illustrates several elements of one embodiment.

Fig. 2 illustrates a method of one embodiment.

Fig. 3 illustrates several elements of embedding in accordance with one embodiment. Fig. 4 illustrates examples of inputs to an innovation technique in accordance with one embodiment.

Figs. 5A-5C illustrate several embodiments of methods to qualify the various inputs to an innovation technique..

Figs. 6A-6F illustrate several examples of classifications of inputs to an . innovation technique in accordance with one embodiment.

Fig. 6G illustrates several examples of innovation techniques used in one embodiment.

Fig. 7 illustrates a process flow in accordance with one embodiment.

Fig. 8 illustrates a process flow of testing potential solutions in accordance with one embodiment.

Fig. 9 illustrates a display of one test of a potential solutions in accordance with one embodiment.

Fig. 10 illustrates an interface of one embodiment to an existing ERP system. Fig. 11 illustrates a computer implemented embodiment. Figs. 12A and 12B illustrates a display of one computer implemented embodiment.

Fig. 13 illustrates a computer implemented embodiment used to tutor a user. Fig 14 illustrates a process flow of a monitoring embodiment. Fig. 15 illustrates a computer network implemented embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

As will be described in more detail below, a method of managing innovation and innovation related data is described. The method includes first, data inputs are received from several sources. Then the data inputs are qualified. Next, one or more of the qualified data inputs are selected. Then, at least one innovation technique is selected. Next, the selected innovation technique is applied to the selected data input. Several potential solutions then result from the innovation technique. Next, a second test is applied to each one of the potential solutions. Then, at least one of potential solutions is selected. Finally, each step in the process and the results thereof are archived.

One intended advantage of the invention is to provide a single point access to a consolidated knowledge base of innovation management ^'and innovation prφce^esμ Another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a centrally organized method and apparatus for dynamically managing the innovation technique. Yet another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a tool for training personnel in the innovation processes. Still another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a computer implemented method and apparatus for managing the innovation process. Further intended advantages include interfacing the innovation process with an organization's existing enterprise resource planning functions. Yet another intended advantage of the invention is to provide a layperson with the tools and knowledge to direct and manage an innovation project without the assistance or direction of an innovation expert.

For one embodiment, innovation is not just about ideas but is a much more complex, multidimensional, enterprise-wide activity than has previously been presented. As illustrated in Fig. 1, innovation requires combining a number of disparate resources and theories such as, but not limited to, personal relationships, mission, new ideas and problems, innovation techniques, competition and competitive responses, market demands, technology, culture, conceptualizing, budgets, in-process testing, critical analysis and measurement and organization and organizational policy. Each of these theories and resources are vital and necessary, to some extent, for some embodiments, for successful implementation or commercialization to occur. Innovation needs a portfolio of tools to increase effectivity and, ultimately, competitive position.

For one embodiment 150 illustrated in Fig. IA, Innovation Engines includes a linkage of twelve, key innovation components. Each component is a very focused category or domain, which contain multiple, relevant practices and techniques defined by that category. Some elements of general innovation practice methods and techniques have been known but not previously formalized, linked, assembled and applied in this embodiment. The combination and use of such relevant practices and techniques within this embodiment of Innovation Engines provides an improved result of innovation processes by providing a higher synergy between the innovation practice methods and techniques. For this embodiment, Innovation Engines has assembled what has not previously been assembled nor identified as logically related categories of a broader unified innovation management process. Innovation Engines also includes a special taxonomy one of which is innovation on demand (IOD).

The combined use of the twelve categories or domains establishes the broadest repertoire of vital innovation elements and techniques that ensure that the most optimal innovation results will occur or be derived. While all domains are significant to the operation of the overall IE process, five categories are the major categories. The taxonomy of these categories is further explained. For one embodiment, the domains are used in a sequential order. For an alternative embodiments, the domains can also be used randomly. For an alternative embodiment, all five of the major domains should be included in the innovation process.

The first category is the status and overview 152. This domain or category provides the ability to track and review ongoing innovation processes and projects. The installation 154 domain provides the utilities to assist the user in installing the process within the host organization. This includes such items as how the innovation process will interface with other portions of the host organization. Next, the embedding 156 domain provides several aspects and training materials for embedding the innovation process within the host organizations operations and policies. Embedding is described in more detail below. Testing and evaluation 168 domain and the fatal flaws 170 domain provide several tests of interim results of the innovation process. The testing and evaluation 168 and fatal flaws 170 processes are described in more detail below. Next, implementation 172 domain provides several aspects, options, methods and assistance for transferring the results of the innovation ^' process back to the host organization so that the host organization and implement the results. The organization 174 domain provides several choices and options of organizing working teams and groups within the innovation processes as will be described in more detail below.

Each category contains a description of its use and applications. The following are the five major categories: Innovation Skills, Direction Finding,

P Solution Finding, Intelligence and Communication, and Strategic Development.

Innovation Skills 158. This category contains methods and processes for training and evaluating innovation competence and skill. Examples of some methods and procedures include tutorials, facilitation, team formation, and other related aspects.

Direction Finding 160. This category is used to help locate or discover new opportunities and to help answer such questions as, "What is the mission or goal? What directions should a project or program take? What are the most viable areas for creative exploration?" The answer to these questions determines which project directions to pursue. Direction finding includes innovation techniques that relate to selecting the direction of a project. Solution Finding 162. This category provides a resource of techniques used for idea generation, new concepts, and brainstorming. Solution finding tilizing diverse methods is intended to produce a range of alternatives and options from which the most preferable candidates can be selected. Solution finding includes innovation techniques relating to the development of new ideas and concepts.

Intelligence and Communication 164. This category includes methods and processes for gathering existing knowledge and information relative to the innovation goal. The existing information can provide additional information to

'( assist the user in beginning the innovation process.

Strategic Development 166. This category includes a range of innovation techniques for organizing the host organization to better focus the organization or a portion thereof on the innovation project. Examples include joint ventures, partnerships, acquisition of a technology or another organization, and other organization techniques.

For one embodiment, the innovation management processes described herein (i.e. innovation engine, IE) can be installed directly into an organization's complete enterprise, including the culture, policies and the operations. For an alternative embodiment, the innovation engine can be implemented with a computer. For one embodiment, an IE can interface directly with a host organization's enterprise resource planning system to provide even further additional benefits. For still another embodiment, IE can be used to organize, manage, simplify, facilitate and leverage a organization's total innovation projects and operations. For another embodiment, a computer program provides interactive information, training, display, and management links to all IE components. The IE components can also be linked to specific active projects and activities throughout the organization.

Fig. 2 illustrates one embodiment of the IE process 200. First a source 210 or sources provide data inputs to the process in step 210. Next, the data inputs are tested for acceptability and completeness (hereafter referred to as qualified) in step 225. In step 230, at least one innovation technique is selected to be applied to the qualified input data. For one embodiment, a data input includes a date field, a source field and a description of the issue field. For alternative embodiments additional fields of information can also be included in the data input. Examples of such additional fields can include a decision due date, competitor information, and others as are appropriate.

Next, the selected innovation technique is applied to the selected, qualified data input in step 235. Then, in step 240, several potential solutions result from the innovation technique. Next, in step 245, a second test is applied to each one of the potential solutions. Then, in step 250, at least one of potential solutions is selected and output. Finally, each step in the process and the results thereof are archived in step 260. One alternative embodiment includes returning unqualified data to the source with a request for more information in steps 265 and 270. Typically, a particular input can be successfully qualified if sufficient information is provided.

One embodiment of the IE is a method of managing innovation related data. For an alternative embodiment, the IE process is embedded into the host organization's practice and culture. Embedding the IE process increases effectiveness and helps ensure continuity of the process and consistency of results, because the IE process is not dependant on personal talents and skills of one person but rather relies upon an established practice. Embedding includes adopting the IE process as a focus for innovation management process. According to one embodiment, embedding includes enacting policies to support and direct the innovation management process. Fig. 3A illustrates a non-comprehensive list of examples of policy statements that an organization can make. According to another embodiment, embedding includes creating and distributing procedures to support and direct the innovation management process. Fig. 3B illustrates a non- comprehensive list of examples of procedures to support and direct the innovation management process. For still another embodiment, embedding includes policies and procedures intended to ensure the innovation management process continues for at least the foreseeable perpetuity. Fig. 3C illustrates a non-comprehensive list of examples of policies and procedures intended to ensure the innovation management process continues into perpetuity. Of course, one skilled in the art could add to any of these embodiments of embedding as necessary whenever an organization adopts a new business philosophy.

One example of embedding IE is where an organization provides rewards and incentives to innovators. Another example of embedding IE is the inclusion of. an innovation contribution made as part of the annual review or merit review process for each employee.

Another embodiment of IE includes receiving many data inputs from any one or more sources. The data input received can be in the form of problem statements such as problems with a product or a process within the host organization. The data input could also be a requested outcome or statement of a need such as a need for diversifying into other markets or regional methods to improve economic development. The data input can arrive in any manner or form contemplated. For example, the data input could be written correspondence, text, audio, video, from the media, or even from previous iterations of the IE process. For one embodiment, a data input includes a date field, a source field and a description of the issue field. The issue field includes a comprehensive description of the question, problem or goal to be addressed. For alternative embodiments additional fields of information can also be included in the data input. Examples of such additional fields can include a decision due date, competitor information, and others as are appropriate. For an alternative embodiment, some forms of data such as, for example, email or data collected via a form on a web site, could be automatically parsed and input into the IE process. For another alternative embodiment, other forms of data must be entered into the IE process manually.

The data sources could be any source ideas and information use to arrive at a organization such as internal sources, external sources, or a planned research project (either internal or external). Fig. 4 illustrates several sources and types of data provided as input to the IE process 440. Internal sources 410 include, for example, such sources as management, senior management, engineering, marketing, employees, parent or partner companies, joint ventures, and many other internal sources such as departments, subdivisions, etc, that vary from organization to organization. External sources 420 can be even more varied including for example: competitors' activities and products, customer demand and feedback, distributors, suppliers, market trends, foreign products, consultants, media, governmental demand or regulation, legal needs, social pressures, and industry groups to name but a few. One skilled in the art can envision many other sources both internal and external to the organization. ^■ For an alternative embodiment, an IE user could identify additional sources in the IE process as required. Research sources 425 include the various, focused research projects such as internal projects, external projects, joint projects, and publicized research projects. The data inputs can arrive in any one of a myriad of data types 430 such as written, text, audio or verbal, video, email, media and data from previous iterations of the IE process.

For another embodiment the plurality data inputs are then qualified. Qualifying the data inputs categorizes the data input to better enable the IE to assist in managing the process. For one embodiment, qualifying the data inputs includes selecting an innovation technique. For an alternative embodiment, qualifying the data inputs includes prioritizing the plurality of data inputs corresponding to the weight of the source of each one of the of data inputs as shown in Fig. 5A. Next, for another alternative embodiment, a weight is applied to each one of the data sources. For example: Internal sources could have a higher value to the organization than external sources and therefore assign a greater weight on that particular source. In a further example, the internal sources could have varying weights such as inputs from the president of the host organization could be assigned a greater weight than if the input was from a lower level of the organization. Still another example could include where one internal department, for instance engineering or production or customer service has a greater weight than another internal department. In still another embodiment, the weight could be variably assigned as the data is received. For a further alternative embodiment, these weights could be established and adjusted as part of the embedding process.

For another embodiment, shown in Fig. 5B, qualification includes, selecting a first input from the plurality of inputs 520. Then, assigning a time to complete requirement factor 522. The time to complete is a relative time estimate. Next, assigning a resource impact factor 524. The resource impact is a relative estimate of resource (i.e. personnel, budget, facilities, materials, etc) requirements. Next, a serendipity potential factor is assigned 526. A serendipity factor is a relative estimate of the possibility of finding valuable or agreeable things not directly sought for such as an unforeseen breakthrough or development or advantage or some completely unrelated idea that could be discovered during the process.

Next, a feasibility factor is assigned 528. The feasibility factor is a relative estimate of the foreseeable problems in addressing the data. Next, an overall worthiness of direction factor is assigned 530. The overall worthiness factor is a ^' relative estimate of how important the expected or desired innovation outcome from this particular piece of data is to the host organization. Then, calculating a potential importance factor 536. The potential importance factor is the sum of the time, resource serendipity, feasibility and overall worthiness factors. Then, if there are more inputs waiting to be qualified 538, then selecting the next input to be qualified 540 and repeating the assigning and calculation of factors (522, 524, 1226, 528, 530, 536) until there are no more inputs waiting to be calculated. Then, ranking the . plurality of data inputs corresponding to the calculated importance factor of each one of the plurality of data inputs 542.

For one embodiment, the relative estimates described above are a comparison to the other data points already established for that particular factor. For example, a relative time factor for five different data inputs could be assigning the highest ranking to the data requiring the shortest time to be completed and assigning a lower ranking for the longer time requirements of the other data inputs. For another example the lowest ranking could be assigned to the data requiring the shortest time to be completed and the higher ranking assigned to the data inputs requiring longer time to be completed. In one embodiment, the factors could be a scale such as 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 or a percentage, or similar types of rating scales. For an alternative embodiment, the relative estimates described above are a comparison to historically similar data inputs.

For another alternative embodiment, shown in Fig. 5C, qualification includes classifying each one of the plurality of data inputs. For one embodiment, classifying includes selecting a data input from the plurality of inputs 552. Then, assigning the data input to at least one classification 554. Then, if there are more inputs waiting to be qualified 556, then selecting the next input to be qualified 558 and assigning to at least one classification 554 until there are no more inputs waiting to be calculated. Then, outputting the classified data inputs 560.

In an alternative embodiment, each of the classifications could have a weight assigned. Classifications are a description of the type of problem or issue stated by the data. Some examples of classifications and their corresponding definitions and examples are listed in Figs. 6A-F. One skilled in the art could also envision additional classifications and an alternative embodiment would allow the host organization to create additional classifications as needed for their individual situation. For an alternative embodiment, the classification of the data promotes or suggests the most effective innovation techniques related to the assigned classification. For another alternative embodiment, the classification of the data promotes or suggests several innovation techniques related to the assigned classification. See the discussion of Figs. 12A and 12B below for examples. For still another alternative embodiment, the classification of the data promotes or suggests a particular order for several innovation techniques to be undertaken. For such an embodiment, the results of a first suggested innovation technique are then fed into a second innovation technique and then to a third and continuing until the

P last innovation technique outputs potential solutions. The right column of Figs. 6A-

F lists some examples of the most effective innovation techniques related to each classification. The most effective innovation techniques have been found to be the most effective methods related to the various classifications of input data.

In another alternative embodiment, at least one of the factors could be increased by a multiple (i.e. such as a 2 times multiple or a 0.5 multiple) if that one factor was thought of by the host organization as being always or at least typically more or alternatively less important. For still another embodiment combinations of any of the qualification methods described above could be used.

For another embodiment, if a particular data input was incomplete or for some other reason was unable to be qualified, then the data would be returned to the source with a request for additional information. Next, for one embodiment, the sum of the assigned factors for each data input is calculated and the data inputs are then ranked in order of the sum of the assigned factors.

Next, at least one qualified data input is selected for further consideration in the IE. For one embodiment, the highest ranked qualified data input will be selected. For an alternative embodiment, any qualified data input could be selected.

In a next step, for one embodiment of the IE process, at least one innovation technique is selected. In one alternate embodiment, a host organization could also select and follow more than one innovation technique. Often, multiple innovation

P techniques will more readily illuminate a correct or a most correct potential solution.

Further, the use of multiple innovation techniques can provide additional potential solutions which can be more beneficial than using only one innovation technique. In another embodiment, the best results can be obtained by applying the qualified data input to two or more innovation techniques in series or parallel as described above.

There are many applicable innovation techniques that could be used. A few examples of innovation techniques are as listed in Fig. 6G and described below. The innovation techniques fall roughly into four categories: solution finding, direction finding, strategic development and intelligence and communication. The list of innovation techniques in Fig. 6G is not comprehensive but rather is merely illustrative. As can be seen several innovation technique cross over to some of the categories. This further illustrates the need for comprehensive linking of various aspects of these innovation techniques. For one embodiment, complete detailed instructions for each innovation technique would be included for use in an IE tutorial resource, a help-file resource and a virtual facilitator resource. Note that there are currently several hundred processes for idea generation alone and that idea generation and the remaining categories of innovation techniques are but one component of the innovation engine process. Despite the diversity of techniques, the majority of methods appear to rely on a similar effect. Each of the methods employ:

• Method(s) to gain access to the subconscious level of previous

P experience, information storage, and ideas.

• Method(s) of engaging the cognitive process which seems to be able to actively search these intellectual archives, if "loaded" (incubated).

• Method(s) to find and make completely new connections with such files spurring new insights (AHA! ideas) which were not other wise apparent.

Wish fulfillment - A method of rapidly identifying totally new innovation parameters, targets and goals. Wish fulfillment is especially effective for new product development in creating an array of new product specifications or breakthroughs. A subject is raised (i.e. dishwashers) about which totally unrestricted, even fanciful and ridiculous wishes and ideas are tolerated, encouraged and harvested for the most desirable, beneficial, extreme, way out, ridiculous, or ultimate attributes that can be hoped for, i.e.: "I wish my dish washer could empty itself." No limitations of any kind are placed on such initial expressions including feasibility or costs. The group can create and document a database of several dozen inputs of the most "wished for" and ideal characteristics. The second step is a quick critical assessment and sorting of the unrestricted, even fanciful and ridiculous wishes and ideas into feasible or not feasible? Typically, a large majority of these ideas and wishes fall within the feasible range. A more scrutinized selection can then be narrowed to identify the most ideal and important new innovation candidates.

5 step process - This is a sequenced method based on alternate divergent and convergent thinking. One version of the 5 step process is also known as the Buffalo- Parnes method. Initially the problem objective must be identified followed by the 5 steps: FF-> PF-> IF-> SF-> AF-> which leads to a plan and to action.

• FF - fact finding requires first sorting out all details about the "mess" to better-understand the problem. • PF - problem finding requires singling out one exact statement of the need or problem to be solved.

• IF - idea finding is the idea generation or brainstorming phase which seeks all possible ideas addressed to solve the stated problem.

• SF - solution finding is the final selection and refinement of the most feasible idea or ideas to be applied.

• AF - acceptance finding represents converging on ways by which the SF needs to be sold or approved. Constructive discontent - This is a quick-fix method most useful for coming up with improvements to existing situations or products. This is a reversal of permissive idea thinking. Permissive idea thinking ordinarily withholds critical judgment until after all ideas are produced. Constructive discontent, on the other hand, begins the process by asking participants to be "critically" creative. A subject (i.e. a product) is selected and asks a knowledgeable group to become immediately super-critical about every aspect or feature of that subject. Participants are often asked, "Describe everything you hate about the product." Because most people are more skilled at criticism, a very long list of very specific, hated aspects will emerge quickly. This list identifies the exact specification of what needs to be solved. The most important articulated complaints are then prioritized, selected and examined for feasibility. How to execute such specific improvements, once given focused consideration usually turns out to more practical than first imagined. Solving only a relatively few areas of discontent can result in new features and improvements that will extend the product life cycle and can significantly increase a competitive advantage and even renew market interest in the product, system or relationship.

My job in the future and My day in the future - This is a long-range futures realization group method. The method is best suited to surface and articulate future needs, requirements, and expectations. The method is useful as scenarios for projections and anticipation of future products, technology and social perceptions. Based on producing a range of narratives of projected personal experiences from the viewpoint of a specific future profession or task. Several group participants are assigned or asked to assume a various work roles in the future (10, 2050 years), i.e.: doctor, engineer teacher, homemaker, policeman, attorney, President of the United States, entrepreneur etc. Each participant is asked to imagine and write down in great detail what they expect to be doing and how in this future period. The written description can include reference to a specific product, plan or system. A review of collective narratives generally reveals unexpected, hidden insights about how future requirements, products, concerns, problems, or social needs may be anticipated and met.

Morphological Analysis - This is a method to innovate new and highly improved or unusual features to existing systems, products or situations by examining existing structure. In the case of a product every aspect, function, and part of that product is itemized and listed along both the vertical and horizontal sides of a matrix. Each discrete part and its function is matched with, compared and combined with every other part. Using this juxtaposition each discrete part is tested against such questions as: In what ways can these elements be combined or brought into a different or better function? What materials can be combined or substituted with yet other parts or be eliminated or provide a new function or benefit?

What if? - A method for identifying and triggering a range of innovation possibilities by developing speculative answers. Applying the question "WHAT IF" to any problem or situation and derive a number of hypothetical and creative answers. The answers are then used to launch more intensive thinking about projected outcomes. For example, if the problem was reducing auto maintenance and expense, one might ask: "What if all automobiles were part of, and had to be paid for on a national lease plan?" "What if all automobiles were public and could . be coin or credit card operated?" "What if auto users belonged to an auto pool from which they could draw any of 25 vehicle models for a specific purpose or function?" "What if auto maintenance, fuel, and insurance could be on an annual contract with oil companies or other brokers which competed for customers?"

Images and force fit relationships - A visual method for "seeing" relationships and problems in new ways. An organizational, technical, or other concern is first identified. For an example, how can the U.S. Post Office become more efficient and responsive to today's ultra high paced communication needs? A series of 3 or 4 random but visually interesting pictures are selected and shown to the group one at a time. Some example images might include: a picture of a sail boats in a race, a picture of a landscape, a picture of a locomotive, a picture of a symphony orchestra, etc. The participants are then asked to identify and list whatever they see as important aspects of each image such as speed, collaboration, danger, power, connection, control, intricacy, etc. Discussing each image aspect, the participants are then asked to come up with force fit relationships they see between that image aspect and their particular concern or problem i.e. increasing U.S. Post Office efficiency by providing inspiring images of winning sailing crews and encourage competition and teamwork. While the images may be random, a little understood, cognitive force-fit action occurs at a subconscious level. The mind strives for resolution and is always ready to search for a connection on a problem related to the relationship. Such connections often require a creative stretch. Which appears to stimulate deeper ideas. The stretch can produce valuable unexpected ideas, even potential breakthroughs not otherwise accessible in conventional linear thinking. One commercial example of such a method is known as Mapbilden and was refined by the Battelle Institute, a research organization.

Collective brain writing - A method especially successful when addressed to dealing with large issues and large groups such as at conferences. First, a major theme or problem area is defined, i.e.: "How can we reduce the mortality rate caused by tobacco usage in undeveloped countries?" The assembly of participants can be as small as a dozen or up to several hundred or more. The participants are broken into cells i.e. table groups of no less than three and no more than 8-10 people. Each participant is asked to fill out one or more large cards writing down several ideas or solutions to the problem with ample space between each idea listed. When completed each card is circulated one person to the right. The person getting the card reads and considers those ideas and writes in their own ideas for improving or making the ideas better. A 10 cell table group could produce approximately 60 or more ideas all of which would have in depth scrutiny and enhancement of all its cell participants. Relative to a particular problem a conference of 500 people is capable of producing thousands of ideas in 2-3 hours. Various ways are available parse and to deal with this magnitude of information. Tables could trade and exchange their cards. Each cell could be asked to summarize its findings. All of the thousands of ideas could be published in a massive innovation handbook to be distributed and used as an agenda for further discussion and evaluation. Other practice ideas are also available. This method was originally known as Crawford slip writing.

Delphi - A forecasting method with a high degree of reliability. It has been generally accepted that experts in a particular area or field can posses the most accurate understanding of predicting the course of future possibilities or events. Given a particular area of concern, the opinions rendered by the reasoning of a multiple number of experts will come closest to a future outcome, i.e.: "How will

P future wars be fought?" To gain maximum effectiveness in this method personal source bias must be eliminated. The Delphi method poses a question and invites a solution or opinion from a number of highly qualified experts. This process is conducted anonymously in writing and the experts and their opinions are not identified to each, other. After receipt of the first response all responses are circulated back to all the other experts without identification. The experts are each asked if based on the other expert opinions, their opinions have changed and if they would like to alter or add any new aspects to their opinions or recommendations. This is reiterated usually about 3-4 times. It has been noted that opinions become sharper and more refined at each iteration as the experts compare their thoughts against the other coUegial ideas or criticism. The final iteration usually results in more reliable forecast about a specific issue or area than might otherwise be obtained by polls, research, pure speculation or other methods. For an alternative embodiment, a user could add or remove innovation techniques as needed for the user's particular situation or organization. For an alternative embodiment, multiple innovation techniques could be coupled together.. For still another alternative embodiment, the categories of innovation techniques could be coupled. In still further embodiments, the coupled innovation techniques or categories of innovation techniques could be coupled in a specific order. For example, in one embodiment, a classification might identify the Idea Generation category as being the most effective category of innovation techniques to apply to the classified input. Also the Direction Finding category would be coupled to the Idea Generation category such that after completing the innovation techniques in the Idea Generation category, next the user be prompted would apply innovation techniques in the Direction Finding category. Other coupling between categories and additional categories are also possible as are other coupling between innovation techniques.

Next, for one embodiment of the IE process, the selected innovation technique or techniques are applied to the selected data input. Fig. 7 illustrates applying the selected innovation technique 700. The innovation technique is then executed by the host organization. For one alternative embodiment, IE can provide additional assistance to the host organization in executing the selected innovation technique. The assistance can include describing and recording the innovation technique and providing a database of assistance or even interactive training for how to apply the innovation technique. The actual innovation technique execution is a mostly human-centered cognitive process requiring human decisions and actions according to the innovation technique selected. The IE can also provide assistance, facilitation, direction and training on each of the innovation techniques as will be • described in more detail below.

Applying the innovation technique 720 or techniques produces at least one and preferably produces several potential solutions 730. These solutions are potential solutions as each one of the potential solutions must still be tested for further development possibilities? or problems. Each one of the potential solution are then input into the IE process.

Next, according to one embodiment, a second test is applied to each one of the potential solutions. The second test is used to test the potential solutions for problems in implementation. One example of one embodiment of the second test is the Abend winning innovation nominees (AWTN) test.

According to one embodiment, the second test evaluates the marketing advantages of a potential solution. Some examples of factors of market advantages include: • Does the potential solution alter the consumer's way of receiving service in a significant way? • Does the potential solution overcome or reduce constraints in a way not previously possible? • Can the potential solution's advantage be immediately understood and applied?

• How large is the magnitude of difference from the competitive offering?

• Does the potential solution open up a whole new range of marketing direction i.e. margins?

• Profits position?

• Will the potential solution be unique to market, exclusive, differentiated?

According to one embodiment, the second test evaluates the technological advantages of a potential solution. Some examples, of factors of technological advantages include:

• Does the potential solution add capabilities or service not previously available anywhere? -

• Does the potential solution move out beyond a direction not fully perceived by competitors?

• Does the potential solution utilize a major technological process, invention or concept not previously applied?

• Does the potential solution open up or permit new or peripheral services?

• Is the potential solution a discontinuous event or a step function? • Will the potential solution be unique to industry, exclusive, differentiated? According to one embodiment the second test will evaluate the value of a potential solution. Some examples of considerations of factors of value of the potential solution include:

• What is the potential magnitude of revenue? • What is magnitude of up front investment required?

• Return on investment (ROl) expected?

• How quickly will the potential solution return investment?

• Will the potential solution meet growth and earnings targets?

• What is the extent and time of negative cash flow? • Will the potential solution deplete other resources?

According to one embodiment the second test evaluates the success criteria of the potential solution. Generally, each industry or product is dependent upon one or two highly critical factors such as: distribution, highest quality, knowledge of trends, service, etc. Unless such success criteria are understood and can be met for the potential solution, all other aspects may be jeopardized. Identify the critical condition for the particular organization and then determine the degree to which the potential solution can obtain the critical condition. Do not undertake this potential solution unless the success criteria indicate a high likelihood of success.

According to one embodiment the second test will evaluate the commitment and interest in a potential solution. Some examples of factors of a level of interest in the potential solution include: • Is the potential solution worth doing? Now or later? Related to the organization's interests? Feel comfort level?

• Can we complete the potential solution? Easily or with difficulty? Today or next century? What is the organization's track record of accomplishing similar objectives?

• Does anyone want to complete the potential solution? Is anyone willing to champion? What is organization willing to give up for to complete the potential solution (Budget, people, time or other projects? How much will the organization put forth to get complete the potential solution? What is degree of personal risk if the potential solution is undertaken?

• Do we need to complete the potential solution? If the organization does not complete the potential solution, will a competitor do so? If we complete the potential solution, to what degree (and how) will the organization's position be enhanced over where the organization is now? If the organization completes the potential solution what's the best thing that could happen?

• Will the potential solution get accomplished? What or who might interfere with completing the potential solution? Can the organization get what resources are needed to complete the potential solution - or are the resources already in place? Does the organization know how to do and complete the potential solution? According to one embodiment the second test will evaluate the strategic position of a potential solution. Some examples of factors of strategic position of the potential solution include:

• In terms of general systems theory, does the potential solution follow the next sequential step of business growth?

• Does the potential solution follow a trend or destiny curve consistent with where the industry is going and where the organization is going?

• Where is the potential solution positioned relative to values, culture, consensus and present or previous business plan? • Degree of resources and know how.

• Degree of resources and know how.

• Degree of resources and know how.

• When does the potential solution have to be on the shelf or in the pipeline to be effective. Can the organization meet that time requirement?

According to one embodiment the second test will evaluate the commercialization potential of a potential solution. Some examples of factors of commercialization potential of the potential solution include:

• Research and development and engineering strength of the organization. Is the potential solution patentable? Probability of technical success? Is the potential solution a simple or elegant concept? Is the potential solution compatible with technological resources? Doe the organization have sufficient depth of technological competence? Is the potential solution cost effective? Is a resulting.product feasible.

• Will facilities, materials, equipment, personnel be available and in place?

• Is the potential solution large enough? What percentage of market can be captured?

• Will the potential solution be easily understood and accepted or will the potential solution require heavy sales push and education?

• To what degree will the potential solution fulfill an unsatisfied or immediate market need or application? Have competitors perceived the need or application?

• What special competitive attributes can be claimed for customer benefit? Will the potential solution have a long life cycle. .

• Is the potential solution consumable? Does the potential solution have a wide range of applications? Is the potential solution user friendly? Is the potential solution safe and non-polluting?

According to one embodiment the second test will evaluate a potential solution for fatal flaws. Some examples of factors of fatal flaws of the potential solution include: • Must a market be developed for the potential solution?

• Does the potential solution require overcoming a technical development?

• Is the development cost of the potential solution excessive?

• How effective does the potential solution respond to the market demand? • Does the organization suffer from inertia problems such as being difficult or slow in changing directions?

• Is the market a high or low risk?

• Is the required research likely to be successful? • Is the financial risk high or low?

• Is the potential solution completely new to the organization?

• Does the potential solution cause organizational territory resistance? For example, does the potential solution cause two divisions of the organization to merge or eliminate a division of an organization? • Does the potential solution cause a resource, conflict?

• How quickly will confidence in the potential solution erode?

• How much negative data must be endured before positive data is provided?

• Is there an unknown factor that could be a fatal flaw to the potential solution?

Fig 9 illustrates one embodiment of a comprehensive and unified display of several of the above described tests. Such a display permits a broad, detailed, graphic representation of each aspect of the evaluation.

Fig. 8 illustrates the processing for each one of the potential solutions, in each of the above embodiments of the second test 800. First, several potential solutions are received 810. One of the potential solutions, a first potential solution, is selected for testing 812. Then, a numeric rating is assigned to each factor in accordance with at least one embodiment of the second test 815. Next, the factors for the first potential solution are then averaged 820. Then, if more potential solutions are still waiting to be tested 825, then the next potential solution is selected 830, factors rated 815 and averaged 820 as described above. If no more potential solutions are waiting to be tested, then the several potential solutions are compared and ranked in order of average value of the factors of the second test 835.

According to one embodiment, next, at least one of the potential solutions is selected as the solution to the problem or issue stated in the initial data input. According to one embodiment, the highest-ranking potential solution is selected. According to another embodiment, the second test can be graphically presented in a single view such as a single sheet of paper or a single display screen of information. One example of a single display of the second test is illustrated in Fig. 9. In an alternative embodiment of the second test, one or more of the embodiments of the second test as described above could be used together. Fig. 9 is an example only and not the only contemplated embodiment of a single display. Using the single display shown in Fig. 9, each of the factors is illustrated as a meter "arrow" showing positive or negative results of each consideration. One skilled in the art could also illustrate the factors using numeric values or percentages, bar graphs, or other equivalent presentation of the data.

In still another alternative embodiment, the second test can be applied to evaluate potential solutions from any source. In another embodiment, the second test can be used by multiple users to individually evaluate the same potential solution. The evaluations from each one of the multiple users are then averaged on each factor. In one embodiment, the composite of the evaluations of the multiple users can be displayed as a composite or multiple arrow position in a meter display.

According to another embodiment, each step of the IE process is archived for future use and data reporting. For yet another alternative embodiment, adding similar and/or related information that had been previously archived could be used to expand the input data.

For still another embodiment, the selected solution is implemented.

Implementation of the solution could include product development and commercialization or further research or other appropriate uses of the solution information.

Other alternative embodiments is illustrated in Fig. 10 and includes a close interface 1000 of the IE process 1010 to the existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) process 1040 in the host organization. Such a close interface 1000 would be very symbiotic as the IE 1010 could readily use the information in the ERP database 1040 for setting budgets, schedules, costs, return on investments, determining impacts on resources, and other data. Further, the ERP 1040 could benefit through use of the data 1050 developed in the innovation technique 1010 such as for the incorporation into the next production cycle 1060 because required resources had previously been determined as part of the IE process.

Still other alternative embodiments include implementing the IE process in a computer system via computer readable software i.e. as a computer aided innovation engine. Fig. 11 illustrates a computer implemented embodiment 1100 including a CPU 1110, memory system 1114, 1116, and input output adapter 1118 and a computer readable media storage device 1120, a user interface 1122, a keyboard 1124, pointing device 1126, speaker 1128, microphone 1132. Also included is a display adapter 1136, a display 1138, and a communication adapter 1134. The computer implemented IE process would be stored in the computer readable media storage device 1120 and displayed and interfaced with the user tlirough the user interface 1122. The communication adapter 1134 also provides a link to additional resources such as a network 1135. The network can include any type of local or wide area network, the Internet, wireless, or other networking devices.

A computer implemented IE process could readily interface with many data entry methods such as email and other electronic data. The computer implemented IE process could also be enabled to readily interface with an enterprise resource planning (ERP) process. Further, a computer implemented IE process could provide interactive interface to a user. Such an interactive interface could track the progress of several data inputs through the process, archive data during the process, report of historical data an assist in making future projections of data. An example of a portion of one interactive IE interface in accordance with one embodiment is illustrated in Fig 12. An alternative embodiment of a computer implemented IE process is modified as the IE process progresses. For example, in Figs. 12A and 12B, the

Analogies and Metaphors 1210, the Wish Fulfillment 1215, and the Opportunity Mapping 1225 annunciators are shown highlighted (outlined) because the problem statement was classified as a Competitive Advantage which, as shown in Fig. 6A is most effectively addressed by the Analogies and Metaphors 1210, the Wish

Fulfillment 1215, and the Opportunity Mappingl225 innovation techniques. For a further alternative embodiment, the graphical interface could be further modified

P such as optional innovation techniques not shown or completely disabled because the optional innovation techniques were not related to the classification of the input data. For still another alternative embodiment, the coupled categories of innovation techniques could be highlighted. In still other alternative embodiments, coupled innovation techniques or coupled categories could be highlighted or otherwise identified to prompt a particular order.

For a further alternative embodiment, as shown in Fig. 12A, creative problem solving 1230, 1232 is one example of an innovation technique residing in more than one domain or category. For still another alternative embodiment, each of the annunciators such as creative problem solving 1230, 1232 shown in Figs. 12A-12B can also open yet another layer or menu or sub-category of innovation techniques. For one embodiment of a computer implemented IE process a database of information relating to the innovation technique is also included. Such a database could include information relating to the embedding process or how the process functions or could be used, or the classifications or the innovation techniques or any other aspect of the IE process. This information could be in several forms. Some examples of the form of database information include text, audio, video, animation, graphical data and hyperlinks to additional information, references, and other forms of information. According to one embodiment, the database of information can be used as a training tool to train the participants and users of the IE process. For example, if analogies and metaphors, a particular innovation technique, were selected but the user was not familiar with how to apply analogies and metaphors, then the database of information could be used to present an informative tutorial on the analogies and metaphors process. The tutorial could include video, audio and interactive testing and hyperlinks and references to additional resources of analogies and metaphors information.

Fig. 13 illustrates a presentation of a topical tutorial run on a computer 1340 and displayed to a user 1310. The tutorial is displayed on the display 1330. The user uses the keyboard 1320, pointing device (not shown) and microphone 1350 to input responses to the tutorial. The tutorial includes audio, video, text, graphics and animation elements. For another alternative embodiment, the database of IE process information could be used as a virtual facilitator to monitor the IE process itself. An example is illustrated in Fig. 14. A user is attempting to qualify a data input 1420. The qualification is not completed because the data is missing a required element and the qualification requires the particular data element, then the user is notified by the virtual facilitator that the qualification was not completed 1425. Next, if the user has the information 1430, then the user can enter the needed information 1435, and the qualification process is completed 1440. If the user does not have the needed information, then the data is returned to the source with a request for additional information 1445. In an alternative embodiment, the needed information can be identified by the virtual facilitator and the user can be prompted to enter the needed information.

For one embodiment, a data input includes a date field, a source field and a description of the issue field. For alternative embodiments additional fields of information can also be included in the data input. Examples of such additional fields can include a decision due date, competitor information, and others as are appropriate.

For example of one embodiment of the monitoring the IE process where the input data is missing the source, then the virtual facilitator can prompt a user to enter the source data. For an alternative embodiment, the monitor can provide information to the user such as examples of the type of data required in the missing field. Still another embodiment can offer explanations regarding why the missing data field is important. Because the embodiment of the qualification process being used in this example requires the source information, then the qualification process- can not be completed. For an alternative embodiment, the user could override such an interactive intrusion into the process the user is attempting to execute. For one example, the data input maybe missing a clear explanation of the issue, purpose or expected outcome. Without a clear explanation of the issue, the innovation technique is not properly focused and therefore likely will not produce an effective result. ,

For an additional alternative embodiment the computer enabled IE process could be coupled to a computer network, as shown in Figs. 16 and 15. The computer network enables the IE process to receive data via the network and to interact with users via the network. The computer networks contemplated include local area networks, Internet, wide area networks, wireless and other network protocols. For an additional alternative embodiment, the IE process could be interactive and collaborative with multiple users participating as illustrated in Fig. 15. Remote workstation 1520, 1530 are connected by various networks 1560, 1570 to a server 1540. A local workstation 1510 and remote workstations 1520, 1530 could be a workstation, a laptop, a personal digital assistant (PDA). The networks 1570 include a satellite or other wireless network or link. For alternative embodiments, the networks 1560 also include Intranet, internet, wide area network, local area network, or virtual private network. For still another alternative embodiment, the IE is resident on a server 1540 and remote users access the IE via networks 1560 such as in an application service provider system or other method of remote user access.

In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. It will be evident that various modifications may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the following claims. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to bepregarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.

Claims

1 CLAIMS

What is claimed is: 1 1. A method of man aging innovation related data comprising:

2 receiving a plur I ity of data inputs from a plurality sources;

3 qualifying the plurality data inputs,

4 selecting at least one of the qualified data inputs;

5 selecting at least one innovation technique from a plurality of innovation

6 techniques;

7 applying the selected at least one innovation technique to the selected data input;

8 receiving a plurality of potential solutions;

9 evaluating a qua I ity of each one of the plurality of potential solutions; 0 selecting at leasl one of the plurality of solutions; and 1 archiving the plurality of data inputs, the priority of the plurality of data inputs, 2 the acceptance test, the Hecond test, the potential solutions and the selected solution.

1 2. The method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising embedding into an

2 organization.

1 3. The method as recited in Claim 2, wherein embedding into an organization

2 includes establishing al l ast one innovation policy.

1 4. The method as recited in Claim 2, wherein embedding into an organization

2 includes establishing al least one innovation procedure.

1 5. The method as recited in Claim 1, wherein each one of the plurality of sources is

-2 weighted.

6. The method as recited in Claim 1, wherein the plurality of sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a plurality of internal source;-- a plurality of external source; and a research source.

7. The method as recited in Claim 6, wherein the plurality of internal sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a management source; an engineering source; « a marketing source; an employee; a parent company; a partner company; a joint venture; and a subdivision of an organization.

8. The method as recited in Claim 6, wherein the plurality of external sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a competitor; a customer; an investor; a distributor; a supplier; a market trend; a foreign product; a consultant; a media source; a government source; a legal requirement; a social pressure; a professional group; an educational organization; an industry group; and a venture capitalist.

-9. The method as recited in Claim 1 , wherein qualifying the plurality of data inputs includes prioritizing the plurality of data inputs corresponding to the weight of the source of each one of the plurality of data inputs.

10. The method as recited in Claim 1 , wherein qualifying the plurality of data inputs includes: assigning a a plurality of factors, wherein the plurality of factors comprise: a time to complete requirement factor; a resource impact factor; a serendipity potential factor; a feasibility factor; an overall worthiness of direction factor based on an expected innovation outcome; calculating a potential importance factor equal to the sum of the plurality of factors; and prioritizing the plurality of data inputs corresponding to the potential importance factor of each one of the plurality of data inputs.

11. The method as recited in Claim 10, wherein at least one of the plurality of factors is increased by a multiple.

12. The method as recited in Claim 1, wherein qualifying the plurality of data inputs includes assigning each one of the plurality of input data to at least one of a plurality of classifications.

13. The method as recited in Claim 12, wherein qualifying the plurality of data inputs further includes automatically selecting and promoting a plurality of most effective innovation techniques related to the assigned classification.

14. The method as recited in Claim 1 , wherein qualifying the plurality of data inputs includes sending an unqualified data input and a request for additional information to the input source of the unqualified data input.

15. The method as recited in Claim 1, wherein the second test includes evaluating an aspect of a potential solution.

16. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a marketing advantage of a potential solution.

17. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a technological advantage of a potential solution.

18. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a value of a potential solution.

19. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a success criteria of a potential solution. I

20. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a level of interest of a potential solution. ^"

21. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a strategic position of a potential solution.

22. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a commercialization potential of a potential solution.

23. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect of a potential solution includes evaluating a fatal flaw of a potential solution.

24. The method as recited in Claim 15, wherein evaluating an aspect includes: evaluating at least one aspect of a first potential solution; evaluating at least one aspect of a next potential solution; ranking the first and next potential solutions in an order of average evaluations.

25. The method as recited in Claim 24, wherein evaluating an aspect includes evaluating the aspect by a plurality of users and averaging evaluations of the plurality of users.

26. The method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising implementing the selected solution^'.

27. The method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising providing a database of information relating to a plurality of Innovation techniques.

28. The method as recited in Claim 27, wherein the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques includes at least one of a group consisting of: a topical text database; a plurality of frequently asked questions; a plurality of tutorials; a plurality of examples; a plurality of gap tests; a plurality of requests for additional input from user; a plurality of recommendations; and a plurality of user notifications .

29. The method as recited in Claim 28, further comprising providing the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques in response to an input from a user.

30. The method as recited in Claim 29, wherein the input includes at least one of a group consisting of: a query for information; a data input; and a test execution input.

31. The method as recited in Claim 27, wherein the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques includes at least one of a group consisting of: text; video; » audio; animation; and graphical presentation.

32. The method as recited in Claim 1 , wherein the method is executed on a computer.

33. The method as recited in Claim 32, wherein the computer is coupled to a computer network.

34. The method as recited in Claim 33, wherein the computer network supports Internet Protocol (IP).

1 35. The method as recited in Claim 33, wherein the computer network includes at

2 least one of a group consisting of wireless application protocol (WAP), local area

3 network (LAN) and wide area network (WAN).

1 36. The method as recited in Claim 1, further comprising exchanging resource

2 planning data with an enterprise resource planning system.

1 37. A method of evaluating a potential solution comprising:

2 evaluating a marketing advantage;

3 evaluating a technological advantage;

4 evaluating a value;

5 evaluating a success criteria;

6 evaluating a level of interest;

7 . evaluating a strategic position;

8 evaluating a commercialization potential; and

9 evaluating a fatal flaw.

1 38. The method as recited in Claim 37, wherein evaluating a potential solution

2 further comprises presenting the marketing advantage evaluation, the technological

3 advantage evaluation, the value evaluation, the success criteria evaluation, the level of

4 interest evaluation, the strategic position evaluation, the commercialization potential

5 evaluation, and the fatal flaw evaluation in a single view.

1 39. A computer program embodied on a computer-readable medium that manages

2 innovation related data comprising:

■3 a code segment that receives a plurality of data inputs from a source; a code segment that qualifies the plurality data inputs; ^• a code segment that selects at least one of the qualified data inputs; a code segment that selects at least one innovation technique from a plurality of innovation techniques; a code segment that displays the innovation technique to a user; a code segment that receives a plurality of potential solutions; - a code segment that applies a second test to each one of the plurality of potential solutions; and a code segment that archives the plurality of data inputs, the priority of the plurality of data inputs, the acceptance test, the second test, the potential solutions and the selected solution. ,

40. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein each one of the plurality 'of sources is weighted.

41. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the plurality of sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a plurality of internal source; a plurality of external source; and a research source.

42. The computer program as recited in Claim 41 , wherein the plurality of internal sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a management source; an engineering source; a marketing source; an employee; a parent company; a partner company; a joint venture; and a subdivision of an organization.

43. The computer program as recited in Claim 41, wherein the plurality of external sources include at least one of a group consisting of: a competitor; a customer; an investor; a distributor; a supplier; ^■ a market trend; a foreign product; a consultant; a media source; a government source; a legal requirement; a social pressure; a professional group; an educational organization; an industry group; and a venture capitalist.

44. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein, the code segment that qualifies the plurality of data inputs includes a code segment that prioritizes the plurality of data inputs corresponding to the weight of the source of each one of the plurality of data inputs.

45. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the code segment that qualifies the plurality of data inputs includes: a code segment that assigns a plurality of factors, wherein the plurality of factors comprise: a time to complete requirement factor; a resource impact factor; a serendipity potential factor; a feasibility factor; ^■ an overall worthiness of direction factor based on an expected innovation outcome; a code segment calculates a potential importance factor equal to the sum of the plurality of factors; and a code segment that prioritizes the plurality of data inputs corresponding to the potential importance factor of each one of the plurality of data inputs.

46. The computer program as recited in Claim 45, wherein at least one of the plurality of factors is increased by a multiple.

47. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the code segment that qualifies the plurality of data inputs includes a code segment that assigns each one of the plurality of input data to at least one of a plurality of classifications.

48. The computer program as recited in Claim 47, wherein the code segment that qualifies the plurality of data inputs includes a code segment that automatically selects and promotes a plurality of most effective innovation techniques related to the assigned classification.

49. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the code segment that qualifies the plurality of data inputs includes a code segment that sends an unqualified data input and a request for additional information to the input source of the unqualified data input.

P 50. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the code segment that applies the second test includes a code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential -solution.

51. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a marketing advantage of a potential solution.

52. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a technological advantage of a potential solution.

53. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a value of a potential solution.

54. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a success criteria of a potential solution.

55. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a level of interest of a potential solution.

56. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a strategic position of a potential solution.

57. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a commercialization potential of a potential solution.

58. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect of a potential solution includes a code segment that evaluates a fatal flaw of a potential solution.

59. The computer program as recited in Claim 50, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect includes: a code segment that evaluates at least one aspect of a first potential solution; a code segment that evaluates at least one aspect of a next potential solution; a code segment that ranks the first and next potential solutions in an order of average evaluations.

60. The computer program as recited in Claim 59, wherein the code segment that evaluates an aspect includes a code segment that evaluates the aspect by a plurality of users and averaging evaluations of the plurality of users.

61. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, further comprising a code segment that provides access to a database of information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques.

62. The computer program as recited in Claim 61, wherein the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques includes at least one of a group consisting of: a topical text database; a plurality of frequently asked questions; a plurality of tutorials; a plurality of examples; a plurality of gap tests; a plurality of requests for additional input from user; a plurality of recommendations; and a plurality of user notifications .

63. The computer program as recited in Claim 62, further comprising a code segment that provides the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques in response to an input from a user.

64. The computer program as recited in Claim 63, wherein- the input from a user includes at least one of a group consisting of: a query for information; a data input; and a test execution input.

65. The computer program as recited in Claim 61, wherein the information relating to a plurality of innovation techniques includes at least one of a group consisting of: text; video; audio; animation; and graphical presentation.

66. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, wherein the computer is coupled to a computer network.

67. The computer program as recited in Claim 66, wherein the computer network supports Internet Protocol (IP).

68. The computer program as recited in Claim 66, wherein the computer network includes at least one of a group consisting of wireless application protocol (WAP), local area network (LAN) and wide area network (WAN).

i UTE SHEET (RULE 26)

69. The computer program as recited in Claim 39, further comprising a code segment that automatically exchanges resource planning data with an enterprise resource planning system.

70. A computer program for evaluating a potential solution comprising: a code segment that evaluates a marketing advantage; a code segment that evaluates a technological advantage; a code segment that evaluates a value; a code segment that evaluates a success criteria; a code segment that evaluates a level of interest; a code segment that evaluates a strategic position; a code segment that evaluates a commercialization potential; and a code segment that evaluates a fatal flaw.

71. The computer program as recited in Claim 70, wherein the code segment that evaluates a potential solution further comprises a code segment that displays the marketing advantage evaluation, the technological advantage evaluation, the value evaluation, the success criteria evaluation, the level of interest evaluation, the strategic position evaluation, the commercialization potential evaluation, and the fatal flaw evaluation in a single view.

72. An apparatus for managing innovation related data comprising: logic that receives a plurality of data inputs from a source; logic that qualifies the plurality data inputs; logic that selects at least one of the qualified data inputs; logic that selects at least one innovation technique from a plurality of innovation techniques; logic that displays the innovation technique to a user; logic that receives a plurality of potential solutions; logic that applies a second test to each one of the plurality of potential solutions;. and logic that archives the plurality of data inputs, the priority of the plurality of data inputs, the acceptance test, the second test, the potential solutions and the selected solution.

73. A computer system for managing innovation related data comprising:

P a CPU; an input device; an output; a display; and a memory system, wherein a the memory system includes a computer program including: a code segment that receives a plurality of data inputs from a source; a code segment that qualifies the plurality data inputs; a code segment that selects at least one of the qualified data inputs; a code segment that selects at least one innovation technique from a plurality of innovation techniques ; a code segment that displays the innovation technique to a user; a code segment that receives a plurality of potential solutions; a code segment that applies a second test to each one of the plurality of potential solutions; and a code segment that archives the plurality of data inputs, the priority of the plurality of data inputs, the acceptance test, the second test, the potential solutions and the selected solution.

74. The computer program as recited in Claim 72, wherein the output is coupled to a computer network.