Vol. 1, No. 6
April, 2001
The "Peter Principle" applies to all of us—everybody has a point at which they are no longer able to single-handedly handle everything. Research suggests that very successful entrepreneurs ask a lot of questions and are quick to seek advice from others.
Obviously, no one knows what was going through the mind of the writer of Proverbs when he penned this advise, but it is a fair bet that he was offering this advise because he felt it was needed. That is, that people sometimes acted without knowledge. It is also a pretty good bet that he had observed the consequences of this behavioral strategy. Human nature hasn't changed much in 3,000 years. People still act without getting advice. We all do it. Inventors are no exception.
There is one thing that may have changed: There is perhaps more advice available today for those who will ask than at any time in the past. In the private sector there are numerous consultants who offer advice on virtually any conceivable subject. Of course, you have to pay for their advice, but nevertheless, it is available. Likewise, in the public sector there is a lot of low or no cost advice available through universities, government programs, and non-profit organizations. We'll discuss some of them in the sections to follow, but first there is an issue of long standing we need to address.
The toughest part of giving advice isn't giving advice, it is getting those who need it to listen. In fact, at times it appears that those who need it the most are the least inclined to seek advice or listen when it is offered. Large corporations typically employ a lot of consultants. This isn't just because they can afford it, it is also because they recognize they need it.
This isn't just my opinion. In the thirty years I have been in the consulting business, I have discussed this issue with a lot of assistance providers including management and technical assistant consultants, doctors, lawyers, and clergy. They all say the same thing, and the literature, should you care to check it out, backs them up. If you are not impressed by literature or consultants, ask your own parents. They will likely tell you the same thing: Getting people to seek council and to listen to it are the two toughest challenges faced by those who offer advice.
The literature will also tell you those who seek council do better. That is, their businesses, innovations, or inventions tend to progress faster and achieve a higher level of success than do those who do not seek help. Let's face it, the Peter Principle applies to every single one of us. We all have a level of competence, beyond which we step at our own risk.
Applying this law to the innovation process and independent inventors, our Peter Principle—our level of incompetence—is determined by our educational background and our life experiences. If we do not have a relevant education or experience (preferably both), education or experience that is related to business and especially product development, we are at a significant disadvantage. This means that if we do not have the relevant education/experiences, we are likely to need help early in our efforts to develop, license, or commercialize our inventions. If we seek advice we can raise the bar on our level of incompetence. With the proper help ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things. For example, a Missouri inventor with no business background sought help from our Small Business Development Center in preparing a business plan. He raised $14 million from a major company. Obviously he had a very good project, but he got the money because his business plan convinced the investor that the inventor would make a good business partner.
Now, I do not want to paint a picture here that consultants (or whoever) are all knowing and you should check your brains at the door when seeking advice or assistance. It is quite common to use consultants as part-time managers as it is cheaper than hiring the needed expertise full time; however, the traditional role of the consultant is to give advice, and it is the traditional responsibility of the manager/owner/inventor/individual to listen to that advice and then make his or her own decision. Whoever reaps the reward, be it pain or profit, should be the one to make the decision.
However, there is something that happens when we seek advice or aid from others. Sometimes when we take the time and invest the thought necessary to ask questions, we provide our own answers. For example, most of the product-related reasons inventions or new products fail are fairly obvious at even the idea stage. I made this observation in 1967 when I was a new MBA working for General Electric. We had invested close to $750,000 in a new product which failed grandly. The idea for a device which would record voice messages on a flat vinyl disc had come from a vice president. We took the idea and ran with it. We spent a lot of money and asked a lot of questions about design, features and need. We discovered that a lot of people hated to write letters, we moved full steam ahead without asking any questions about the product concept. When the product failed, I got around to asking some questions, and I ended up with a list of 19 problems, 15 of which should have been obvious to us at the idea stage. By the way, it was that list that served as the foundation for the invention evaluation format used by WIN today. In a very real sense, WIN clients have the opportunity to learn, at GE's expense, from their (and my) mistake thirty years ago.
In addition, those who seek advice are exposed to the perspectives of others. The advice offered may not be on target, but honest opinions provide another perspective which may cause you to modify your view of how and what should be done. Also, when you and I start asking questions we frequently answer our own questions. As a Vero Beach, Florida inventor put it, asking questions and seeking advice ". . . puts your brain to working." Thinking is a great way to resolve in a positive direction the conflict between what we want to do and what we ought to do. Thinking gives common sense a chance to be heard.
Despite all the good arguments for seeking council, the majority of people opt not to reach out even when the help is available and known to them. For example, less than one in four of the people who inquire about the WIN program actually participate. Obviously, WIN is not appropriate for everyone, but a goodly number of people who could benefit from an outside objective professional opinion of their invention pass by, and some of these people make costly mistakes that could have been avoided. Even amongst those who do participate, a significant number do not follow up on our suggestions to contact one of our resource partners in their states.
Because of the near universal need for advice and assistance we started work on developing linkages with a variety of management and technical assistance (MTA) groups even before we launched WIN in 1990. In fact, networking is so important, we incorporated the concept into our name. We had a number of management and technical resources lined up before we launched the WIN program. Today we have 3,000 MTA resources scattered across the United States and Canada. Included are small business development centers, innovation centers, manufacturing extension centers, inventor organizations, Service Corps of Retired Executives chapters, Students In Free Enterprise chapters, patent depository libraries, patent attorneys, consulting firms, licensing agents, and a variety of other public and private sector resources.
We would like to make these resources available to every inventor. Unfortunately, we cannot. The bulk of these resources are funded with taxpayer money and they are charged with the responsibility for investing their time and money wisely. The objective of many of these programs is to stimulate economic development.
With the exception of inventor groups and the patent depository libraries, very few of them are dedicated to assisting inventors. In other words, inventors are a means to an end, not the targeted objective of these organizations. They are not places where inventors can move up their learning curve at their leisure. However, they are places where inventors with ideas and inventions of commercial merit may be able to get help in research, development, planning, and licensing their inventions.
Consequently, many of our resource affiliates have specifically requested that we not refer inventors or innovators to them until after we have completed an evaluation and have established at least some commercial merit. To put it bluntly, they do not want to waste their time and effort on projects that do not have at least a reasonable chance of success. Hence, we do not make the list of our resource partners available to the public. Inventors must first obtain a WIN evaluation and receive at least a recommendation for limited and cautious development.
We have not placed the qualification bar at a high level. In fact, it may be a little too low. However, this policy has paid off in the past. For example, an Arizona inventor submitted a project we really liked. We even got some positive feedback from the relevant buyer at a large retailer. The problem was his invention was fifty years old and his patents had long expired. Consequently, his invention was in the public domain and available free to anyone who wanted to use it. With some help from the Arizona Business Connection, one of our resource partners, he contacted a major firm we had recommended to him. Because the material he submitted was professional in appearance and tone, he got past the initial screen common at most large firms and reached the desk of a high-level executive.
There, his material, plus our positive report, resulted in a test of his device, which in turn resulted in a license. We hear a lot about manufacturers ripping off inventor's ideas, but it has been my experience that the bulk are honest folks. That was certainly the case here. The firm knew the idea was in the public domain, but they decided to do the right thing. As a former executive of the firm told me, "After all, it was his idea, not ours." By the way, the former executive was my nephew who was not aware of my involvement in the project.
I chose this example because this inventor had invested thousands and a lot of time over a long period of time in attempting to license his invention. He had met with repeated failures and had given up on the project when he saw an article in a news-aper about the WIN program. Of course, luck had a good deal to do with this success story, but if it had not been for the evaluation and especially the help rendered by our resource partner, he would not have succeeded with his invention.
Gerald G. Udell, Ph.D.
Copyright © 2001 by The Innovation Institute.
Permission to copy for free distribution granted to SCORE/SBDC's