1.1 Key aspects of the study
This book is primarily about using the example of the float glass process as an illustration of entrepreneurship, business process innovation and diffusion. Innovation and diffusion theory are front and centre, with specific industrial history forming a detailed case study. The importance of the glass industry as a pertinent example for study of innovation activities has been recognised for some time (Jewkes et al., 1969). It is on this basis that this story is a suitable case study in this instance.
Considerable material has been published about the float glass process in terms of its history (Barker, 1977, 1994), technical features (Pilkington, 1969), shop floor viewpoint (Grundy, 1990), development (Bricknell, 2009), innovation (Uusitalo, 2000, 2014), and family history (Pilkington, 2010). But little has been written, resulting in a âgapâ in the literature, in terms of the management of the early float glass start-ups. This case study seeks to remedy this by recounting developments through the âlensâ of one of the leading glass technologists involved in the process at the time, using historical and archival material, and artefacts from the period.
The key point of the book is that it is believed by âtellingâ the story of the early float glass start-ups, important aspects of the business of new process diffusion involved in the management of early start-ups will come to light. This will be in terms of the case study concerning business origins of the process and its invention, progressing to innovation, competition in the market, first successful production, licensing and patents, and the management of the start-ups leading to market leadership.
A book concerning the early float glass start-ups topic is relevant to the contemporary literature in the area of innovation due to being a concise case study of significance to technology, entrepreneurship and innovation. In recent years there has been considerable growth and interest in entrepreneurship and innovation as an important study area at leading universities. The combination of the foundation of the theoretical study of innovation, diffusion and start-ups with an understanding of the application of this to new process diffusion provides a powerful and rich source of material for academic study. This is an ideal way to develop the content to make the most of this subject. The study will appeal to the bookâs intended readership by providing a convenient and interesting way for undergraduate and postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers to gain an understanding of the processes involved in new process diffusion and start-up management.
1.2 Interrelationship between invention, innovation and business development
Innovation can be defined as either the âapplication of a new method or deviceâ (Collins, 1997) or the âsuccessful exploitationâ of a new idea (Thomas and Rhisiart, 2000). According to Baregheh et al. (2009), innovation is âthe multi-stage process whereby organisations transform ideas into new/improved products, services or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplaceâ. In terms of successful innovation Mariello (2007) identifies five discrete and essential stages: (1) idea generation and mobilisation â the generation stage is the starting line for new ideas; (2) advocacy and screening; (3) experimentation; (4) commercialisation; and (5) diffusion and implementation.
Innovation literature has long demonstrated the importance of external sources in the development of successful innovation (Carter and Williams, 1957). These studies tended to focus on the identification of the sources and types of knowledge and technology, often neglecting the nature and origins of the relationship linking the recipient (the innovator) to the source of technological innovation. In innovation support networks technology equates with knowledge. Within university-industry link systems a multiplicity of technology transfer mechanisms are apparent, which appear to be well integrated (Cheese, 1993). Internal research and development (R&D) not only produces new information but also evolves external know-how and technology (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989). Freeman (1991) has argued that âthe successful exploitation of imported technology is strongly related to the capacity to adapt and improve this technology through indigenous R&Dâ.
Much has been written about invention and inventive activity. Published work typically describes inventive activity on a historical-developmental basis or as a collection of case studies, presenting qualitative findings in relation to the inventive developments taking place. Indeed, the relationship between invention and innovation has involved much discussion. Innovation is defined by Kanter (1983) as involving âcreative use as well as original inventionâ, and simply it is defined by Mellor (2005) as âcreativity plus applicationâ or âinvention plus applicationâ. Burns (2007) further reports that âinvention is the extreme and riskiest form of innovationâ. In particular, Bolton and Thompson (2000) highlight creativity in the invention and innovation process.
The interrelationship between invention and innovation is both of theoretical and practical significance. It may involve inventors in all aspects of the process of product, process or service development, but also it can involve them separately. The latter case is exemplified historically by Adam Smith (1776), who observed that âall the improvements in machinery, however, have by no means been the inventions of those who had occasion to use the machinesâ. He also considered the way in which the division of labour promoted specialised inventions. This is articulated by Marx (1858), who notes âinvention then becomes a branch of business, and the application of science to immediate production aims at determining the inventions at the same time as it solicits themâ. Freeman and Soete (1997, p. 15) develop this theme of invention as âan essential condition of economic progress and a critical element in the competitive struggle of enterprises and of nation-statesâ.
Freeman and Soete (1997, p. 16) remark that âalthough most economists have made a deferential nod in the direction of technological change, few have stopped to examine itâ. This paradox has been explained by Jewkes et al. (1969) in terms of the ignorance of science and technology by economists, their pre-occupation with the trade cycle and employment problems, and limited statistics. This was demonstrated by Jewkes et al. (1969) in their study of âThe Sources of Inventionâ and has been confirmed before and since by empirical studies. Freeman and Soete (1997, p. 17) develop this argument regarding the neglect of invention, since it
was not only due to other pre-occupations of economists nor to their ignorance of technology; they were also the victims of their own assumptions and commitment to accepted systems of thought. These tended to treat the flow of new knowledge, of inventions. ⌠as outside the framework of economic models, or more strictly, as âexogenous variablesâ.
The distinction between invention and innovation was originally owed to Schumpeter (1934, 1961) and has since become part of economic theory. Freeman and Soete (1997, p. 22) add, âan invention is an idea, a sketch or a model for a new improved device, product, process or system. Such inventions may often (not always) be patented but they do not necessarily lead to technical innovationsâ. Also, âthe chain of events from invention or specification to social application is often longer and hazardousâ (Freeman and Soete, 1997, p. 22). The crucial role of the entrepreneur in this complex process was recognised by Schumpeter (1934, 1961), although he did not consider the study of invention to be of significance in itself. According to Johnson (2018, p. 8) âentrepreneurs spot opportunities and seize them with vigour. They are energetic, ambitious and competitiveâ. A summary of the inputs and outputs of the inventive process, based on Ames (1961) and Freeman and Soete (1997), is presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Inputs and outputs of inventive work
| Process | Inventive inputs | Inventive outputs |
| Inputs from | Other inputs | Output | Other outputs |
|
| Inventive work | Orders from entrepreneurs Inventive work development | Outputs of research | New technological problems Unexplainable successes and failures | Patents Non-patentable inventions |
In the twentieth century, according to Freeman and Soete (1997), there was a shift towards large-scale corporate R&D. This is contrary to the interpretation provided by Jewkes et al. (1969) in their classic study The Sources of Invention, as already mentioned. In this, they reduce the difference between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and minimise the importance of corporate R&D. Moreover, they argued that important twentieth-century inventions were the result of individual inventors similar to the nineteenth century. In fact, they concede that due to the extortionate development costs, large-scale corporations will often still be necessary to bring inventions into commercial exploitation. Indeed, out of 64 major twentieth-century inventions, 40 were attributed to individual inventors compared to 24 from corporate R&D, and out of those 40, half were dependent for commercial development on large firms. One of the twentieth-century inventions they considered was the float glass process.
Freeman and Soete (1997) maintained from the standpoint of economics that it was innovation that was of central interest rather than invention, although they did not deny the importance of invention or the vital contribution creative individuals make to invention. This has been highlighted by Johnson (1975), who recognised the economic significance of invention itself in terms of its process and relationship, to the size of the firm and the role of the individual inventor. But they do note, even on Jewkes et al.âs account of major inventions, that there has been a shift since the early twentieth century to a larger contribution from inventors associated with corporate R&D.
According to Freeman and Soete (1997, p. 169):
the test of successful entrepreneurship and good management is the capacity to link together. ⌠technical and market possibilities. ⌠Innovation is a coupling process and the coupling first takes place in the minds of imaginative people. ⌠But once the idea has âclickedâ in the mind of the inventor or entrepreneur, there is still a long way to go before it becomes a successful innovation. ⌠The one-(person) inventor-entrepreneur. ⌠may very much simplify this process in the early stages of a new innovating firm, but in the later stages and in any established firm the âcouplingâ process involves linking and coordinating different sections, departments and individuals.
A fundamental question regarding the role of the inventor is whether invention depends on inventors in terms of national and regional policies, which may aim to liberate individual âinventivenessâ. According to Norris and Vaizey (1973), this widely held view may be false. It is debatable whether this is the case since although most inventions are promulgated by individuals...
