Technovation, 16(4) (1996) 173-186

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
ELSEVIER 0166-4972/96 $15.00 + 0.00
ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGY

Human factors and the innovation

process•
Howard C. Livesay
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4236, USA
David S. Lux
Bryant College, 450 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917-1284, USA
Marilyn A. Brown
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, PO Box 2008, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6186, USA

Absl act
The goal of this paper is to describe two typologies of human factors that
help explain the technical innovation process, and to illustrate their
predictive power. The first typology defines five categories of inventors based
on inventors' views of success and their corresponding attitudes toward
technology, reaching the market, and creating a business. In diminishing
order of likely technical innovation success, these five types are
'entrepreneurs with technology', 'industry-specific inventors', 'professional
inventors', 'grantsmen', and 'inveterate inventors'. The second typology
categorizes the motivations that underlie the choices made by inventors in the
development of their technologies. Inventor motivations need to be considered
by managers of innovation programs because the success of any innovation
program requires that there be some degree of overlap between the
program's goals and the inventor's own definition of success. These
typologies can help managers of innovation programs direct scarce resources
to inventors with the greatest probability of commercial success. They also
indicate the types of assistance that will be most instrumental in accelerating
the commercialization of new technologies.

The ability of these typologies to explain rates of success in the

commercial development of new technologies is illustrated using data from
the small business and independent inventors who have participated in the
Energy-Related Inventions Program (ERIP). The ERIP is a federal program
operated jointly by the US Department of Energy and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology and is designed to assist the development of
non-nuclear inventions with outstanding potential for saving or producing
energy.

American economy. In the late twentieth century,

1. INTRODUCTION
Inventors have traditionally been a source of new
technologies that have powered the growth of the
J Paper prepared for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, US Department of Energy, by the Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA, managed by Lockheed Martin
Energy Research Corporation, under Contract No. DE-AC05-
84OR21400.
innovation, the process of transforming an idea into
a new product or service, appears to be playing a
more vital role than ever before. Innovation, and those
who carry it o u t - inventors among t h e m - have
thus become the subject of extensive research aimed
at achieving greater understanding of technical
entrepreneurship. Increasingly, inventors have also
been the beneficiaries of Federal and state programs
designed to encourage, proliferate, and accelerate the

016s-as72(K)ooo4~1 Technora~o.Yd. 16 No.4 173

H.C. Livesayet al.
innovation process. One such program is the Energy-
Related Inventions Program (ERIP).
The goal of this paper is to describe two typologies
of human factors that help explain the technical inno-
vation process, and to illustrate these typologies and
their predictive power using data from the small busi-
ness and independent inventors who have participated
in the ERIP. The first typology defines five categories
of inventors based on inventors' views of success and
their corresponding attitudes toward technology,
reaching the market, and creating a business. This
typology is important to managers of government
innovation programs because it can help direct scarce
resources to inventors with the greatest probability of
commercial success. It also indicates the types of
assistance that will be most instrumental in accelerat-
ing the commercial progress of a technology. The
second typology categorizes the motivations that
underlie the choices made by inventors in the devel-
opment of their technologies. Inventor motivations
need to be considered in government-sponsored inno-
vation programs because the success of a program
requires that there be some degree of overlap between
the government's goals and the inventor's own defi-
nition of success.
This paper begins by reviewing the literature on
human factors in the innovation process. The next
section provides an overview of the Energy-Related
Inventions Program, its motivation for funding this
study, and the program data that forms the empirical
foundation for this research. Attention then turns to
the inventor typology, including a description of the
five categories of inventors and an analysis of the
hypothesis that these inventor types experience vary-
ing levels of commercial success. Next we describe
the typology of motivational factors, including
descriptions of the thirteen types and vignettes of
individual inventors that illustrate the varying motiv-
ations influencing the innovation process. The paper
concludes with a discussion of implications for pro-
moting the successful commercialization of inno-
vations.
2. HUMANFACTORSIN INNOVATIONPROCESS
RESEARCH
In the realm of economic theory, Robert Solow
won the Nobel Prize some years ago for demonstrat-
ing that sustained economic growth requires techno-
logical innovation. More empirically based research
has, in recent years, added credibility to that prop-
osition. It has, moreover, documented an essential
relationship among such factors as R&D, innovation,
technology transfer, growth-oriented small businesses
(especially technology-based small businesses includ-
ing startups), and entrepreneurship on the one hand,
and such desired social outcomes as job creation,
economic growth, and enhanced competitiveness on
the other (Ellin, 1979; Maidique, 1980; Bruun, 1980;
174 TechnevaSonYd. 16 No.4
Kurz, 1983; Birley, 1986; Kirzner, 1983; Birch,
1993).
Knowing and appreciating the desirable results of
the innovation process intensifies the importance of
making it function more effectively. Research into
that question has generated a considerable literature
of its own, much of it focused on human factors. The
literature runs a gamut from the general to the spec-
ific, including such broad observations as the innate
human propensity for the status quo which impedes
change (such as innovation) even among people who
have a professional responsibility to effect it
(Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988). More focused but
still quite generic observations advise, for example,
of the existence of major barriers to the transfer of
R&D from one department of an organization to
another, and suggest finding the most cost-effective
combination of promoters to neutralize the barriers.
However much general validity such commentaries
might embody, they so lack specificity as to provide
little practical guidance for those attempting to bring
n e w technologies to market. Other research has both
pointed to the need for greater focus and attempted
to provide it, arguing, for instance, that concentrating
on the 'central tendencies' of entrepreneurs and their
finns obscures the diversity of operational realities
(Cooper et al., 1989)--something that inventors,
who often need entrepreneurial assistance, could pro-
fit by understanding.
By applying models and developing taxonomies of
new business ventures, analysts of entrepreneurial
diversity have found, within the wide variety of firms
and entrepreneurs, patterns that have practical appli-
cations to the management of technology transfer
(Gartner et al., 1989) including the need more effec-
tively to couple creative people such as inventors to
that process (Ehretsmann et al., 1989).
We have, for instance, learned that while some
small businesses may innovate far more effectively
than large ones, only a fraction of small firms are in
fact 'innovative'. The ability to distinguish that min-
ority is, as one article observes, "likely to attenuate
the risk...for lenders and investors [and] enhance the
efficient allocation of resources" (Khan and Manop-
ichetwattana, 1989, p. 195), as is a taxonomy of
"entrepreneurial team characteristics" (Dubini,
1988b). Conversely, entrepreneurs could make good
use of a typology of informal, early-stage investors
to facilitate and focus searches for startup capital
(Aram, 1989).
Similarly, while small business may power the
engine of job creation and economic growth, many
small business entrepreneurs do not want their com-
panies to grow at all, and few aspire to large-scale
expansion (Davidsson, 1989). The key to understand-
ing these varied attitudes lies in the recognition that
attitudes toward growth reflect a range of motivations,

which in turn root in definitions of success, the stars
by which the captains of small business steer their
craft. Indeed, as we shall also see with inventors,
understanding what constitutes success provides a key
to unlock otherwise unfathomable behavioral myster-
ies, which in turn may facilitate the removal of attitu-
dinal constrictions in the flow of technologies toward
the market.
These impediments beset innovative firms at many
crucial points along the way, including during the
search for a technology to improve an existing pro-
duct or around which to create a new one. For many
firms these are life or death decisions with outcomes
that depend on building "a sense of purpose among
all...employees" and creating among them "commit-
ment to the goals and mission of the enterprise"
(Danila, 1989). Critical to the process of project selec-
tion is a willingness to recognize the manifold poss-
ible sources of new technologies, and to create a
structure and method such that "new ideas, wherever
generated, [may] emerge and gather momentum infor-
mally". Indeed, such an open and flexible attitude,
operating in "an organizational context [in which]
people throughout the organization are motivated to
search [for new product concepts]", could find a valu-
able resource in inventors, particularly if an informed
awareness of inventors helped the searchers to "know
what to look for, and what to value when they have
found it" (McGuinness and Conway, 1989, p. 297).
In addition to emphasizing the importance of com-
prehending the diversity and plurality of motivation
when selecting a firm for a technology, or a tech-
nology for a firm, research into the management of
new product development has demonstrated the
importance of typologies to understanding internal
dynamics within innovative companies. Even in firms
focused on innovation, the launching of a new product
development project introduces a fresh element of
uncertainty to the organization. No simple rule of
thumb can predict accurately the reaction to the new
project, for different people will react in different
ways to different projects, depending upon the per-
sonal codes, ethics, and outlooks on behavior of the
personnel assigned to the project. These attitudes may
make them resistant to "'mundane' management and
commercial concerns". Management thus has the
responsibility to "exercise discrete and behaviorally
sensitive control", which in turn requires a sensitivity
to the personalities and sensibilities involved (Martin,
1984, pp. 204-205).
With such awareness, the organization may trans-
form itself from an information processing machine
that regards the new project as simply more grist for
the mill into a powerful incubator that creates new
information (Nonaka and Yamanouchi, 1989). With-
out such an awareness, the firm massively compli-
cates the crucial task of building project development
organizations that adequately take into account the
complex variables of technology and people involved.
Humanfactorsand the innovalJonprocess
An impressive body of research has explored these
complexities, and much of it argues an indispensable
role for taxonomic and typological guides through the
maze (Wild, 1990; Slocum and Sims, 1980; Galbraith,
1982; Roberts and Fusfeld, 1981).
Even when not directly related to inventors, these
findings help explain the reluctance of many busi-
nesses to interact with inventors, and the lack of suc-
cess encountered by many inventors who have
attempted to initiate a relationship themselves.
Further, as some researchers have specifically argued,
public policy efforts to facilitate technology transfer
and innovation need to take diversity into account,
especially diversity of incentives and motivation, and
then tailor programs to accommodate those realities
(Cooper et al., 1989; Dubini, 1988a). At least a pre-
cedent for tailored public programs exists within DOE
(Brown and Major, 1990), and the validation of an
inventor typology might provide some of the infra-
structure necessary for similar adaptations within the
Energy-Related Inventions Program.
3. THEENERGY-RELATEDINVENIIONSPROGRAM
3.1 Overview of the program
Established in 1974 under the Federal Nonnuclear
Energy Research and Development Act (P.L. 93-
577), the Energy-Related Inventions Program is
directed to assist the development of non-nuclear
inventions with outstanding potential for saving or
producing energy, "particularly those submitted by
individual inventors and small companies". The goal
is to help individual and small company inventors
with promising technologies develop their inventions
to a stage of development that would attract the
investment necessary for private sector commercializ-
ation. Many of these technologies face significant
market and industry barriers that reduce their ability
to attract early funding and intensify the difficulties
of product development. In addition, individual and
small business inventors often lack the business
experience needed to surmount these hurdles.
Anyone can submit an invention at any stage of
development to the program for a free, confidential
evaluation. The legislation provides for the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), pre-
viously called the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS), to evaluate the inventions submitted, assessing
them for technical feasibility, energy conservation or
supply potential, and commercial possibilities. The
most promising inventions are recommended to DOE
for possible grant support.
DOE grants are provided to most of these recom-
mendees to pay for technical research, prototype
development, testing, and a variety of other activities
that help move the technologies one step closer to the
market. In addition, ERIP conducts Commercializ-
TedmvaUonVol.16 No.4 175
H.C. Livesay et al.
ation Planning Workshops for inventors in the pro-
gram. To find inventors and encourage innovation,
ERIP holds several National Innovation Workshops
each year in different regions of the country, jointly
sponsored by local businesses, inventor organizations,
universities, and state and local governments.
Since 1975 (when the program began), more than
30000 inventions have been submitted to NIST for
evaluation, and more than 600 of these have been rec-
ommended to DOE for support. Approximately 80%
of these recommendees have received DOE grants
averaging $70000.
3.2 MoUvatJonfor the research
In 1980, the managers of the Energy-Related
Inventions Program authorized a program evaluation
that has become an active and ongoing part of the
program's operation. The evaluation has collected and
analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data with
two objectives in mind:
• assessing the effectiveness of the ERIP; and
• suggesting operational means of enhancing that
effectiveness.
In the 14-year life of the evaluation, this effort has
produced a significant body of data valuable not only
to the ERIP' s management, but also to the larger com-
munity concerned with technology transfer.
In particular, the evaluation has provided data on
program participants (e.g. age, education, inventing
history), their technologies (type, stage of develop-
ment, technical obstacles encountered), project out-
comes (technology marketed or abandoned, lessons
learned), and economic impact (sales, capital raised,
jobs created). In addition, the evaluators have, over
the years, made numerous operational suggestions,
many of them implemented wholly or partially as
management deemed appropriate. Under this heading,
the most visible example is the Commercialization
Planning Workshop, a four-day seminar which is now
prerequisite for all participants prior to obtaining
DOE support (Livesay, 1988).
Clearly, the overall effectiveness of the evaluation
depends upon an ongoing focus on questions central
to the ERIP mission, producing answers useful to
ERIP management and staff in terms of both day-to-
day operations and long-term planning. This manage-
ment-oriented perspective has logically dictated an
effort to identify characteristics of inventors, techno-
logies, and commercialization strategies that might - -
separately or in combination--correlate with the
commercial success or failure of ERIP technologies.
From such research and analysis emerge apparent pat-
terns such as typologies and taxonomies which, if
validated by empirical research, may contribute use-
fully to the perception and management of the mani-
fold variables of the innovation p r o c e s s - that pro-
176 TedmvaUonVoL16 No.4
cess through which inventions pass to emerge as
marketed new products and services. A typology of
ERIP inventor characteristics thus promises to make
an effective contribution to the operation of the ERIP,
particularly on the DOE side where the emphasis
shifts from evaluating the technology to providing
assistance to the individual(s) who control it.
In addition, through the continuing process of
external publication of ERIP evaluation findings, such
a typology might contribute to a more effective inte-
gration of small business and independent inventors
into the arena from which American industry draws
technologies to create new and improved products and
services. Small businesses and especially independent
inventors are underutilized, in part, because of wide-
spread misunderstanding about their attitudes, values,
and motivations. Innovation can be stymied by such
knowledge barriers because it requires the effective
integration of research, development, manufacturing,
and marketing; yet those who live and work in these
subcultures have embraced, through training and dis-
position, "differences in approved patterns of thought
and action", such that "two way flows of informa-
tion...do not occur spontaneously" (Aitken, 1976,
p. 329; Gupta et al., 1986).
Given the pervasive impedance to technology
transfer, research on ERIP inventors' characteristics,
in addition to facilitating the operation of the program
itself, might, through publication of the results, con-
tribute to the program's long-standing and over-arch-
ing goal of enhancing the creative spirit and capacity
of the country as a whole. Certainly the research falls
well within the mainstream of inquiry into the com-
plexities of technology transfer and entrepreneurship,
which in recent years has tried to enhance understand-
ing of the innovation process by securing a better
understanding of those who participate in it.
3.3 Datafrom the program
3.3.1 The Commercialization Planning Workshop
experience
The existence of the ERIP Commercialization Plan-
ning Workshops has provided an important point of
research contact with the population of ERIP inven-
tors. From 1984 through 1993, the program sponsored
34 such seminars, processing more than 400 ERIP-
sponsored participants (12 per workshop) through the
4-day program. Collectively, two of the authors of
this study (Livesay and Lux) have participated in each
of these workshops, such that between them they have
interviewed more than 400 participants.
The workshops provide each participant with the
combination of classroom instruction, professional
business consultation, and ERIP guidance necessary
to enter the grant contracting phase of their ERIP
involvement. From the outset, the goal of the work-

shops has been to equip participants to move into this
ERIP grant phase with a plan that maximizes sub-
sequent opportunities for success in commercializ-
ation. By their nature, then, the workshops become
a nodal point bringing together the program's major
stakeholders in an effort to negotiate a mutually
acceptable approach to technology development - - an
approach that fits ERIP programmatic goals while
also meeting the participant's expectations and desires
in commercialization.
For most participants, the workshop experience
offers the opportunity to take an additional step for-
ward in refining, focusing, or coordinating technical
development and commercialization planning. Some
participants find the classroom sessions most valu-
able. Others find the one-on-one consulting most
important. Still others report that just the opportunity
to get away from their daily routines and give four
days exclusively to their ERIP project moves them
ahead significantly. For such participants - - those for
whom the workshop facilitates a linear step forward
on an already charted p a t h - the workshops provide
a benefit that is fairly easy to describe in terms of
education, consultation, and planning.
For other participants, however, the workshop
experiences pose more of a challenge. It is not
uncommon, for example, for the workshop to provide
the forum in which NIST participants first discover
that ERIP grants are awarded only in amounts less
than $100000, or that ERIP funds cannot be used to
pay for a patent attorney's fees, advertising, or direct
marketing. Likewise, it is not uncommon for parti-
cipants to discover that long-held and cherished hopes
for the commercialization of a technology are miscast,
misguided, or unlikely to succeed. For these parti-
cipants, the workshop can become a stressful experi-
ence, one in which they begin reassessing their plans
and redirecting their effort. In other words, conflict
between personal goals and ERIP programmatic
guidelines can bring participants to a crisis point in
their commercialization projects.
While the nature of the workshop activity makes it
impossible to define such a phenomenon in quantitat-
ive terms, collective faculty experience in dealing
with inventors at workshops does allow qualitative
analysis of the kinds of factors that lead inventors to
conflict in trying to reconcile their personal goals and
motivations with the realities of the innovation pro-
cess and the ERIP grant process. Surprising numbers
of participants do, in fact, appear to face difficulty in
meshing their personal goals and motivations with the
kinds of approach to innovation that the ERIP seeks
to sponsor.
The most striking feature of dealing with these
ERIP inventors who find it difficult to plan for com-
mercialization at a workshop is that, when all is said
and done, their hesitancies to accept the ERIP-spon-
sored message on commercialization are related to a
Humanfactorsand innovaUonprocess
reluctance to plan for commercialization along lines
that can be described as standard business practice.
ERIP's invention coordinators and the workshop fac-
ulty are often more eager to see movement of a tech-
nology toward commercial success than are the inven-
tors themselves. Further, ERIP personnel are often
more attuned to the realities of American business
practice and the difficulty inherent in the commer-
cialization of technology than are the private-sector
inventors and business people they seek to support.
A disparity between the ERIP goal of supporting
technical development that will lead to effective com-
mercial deployment and an inventor's plans for tech-
nical development occurs frequently enough to war-
rant serious attention. In some cases the disparity may
be so great as to prevent programmatic support, but
in many others it appears possible to negotiate a
mutually acceptable approach to commercialization.
3.3.2 Qualitative case studies
Between 1981 and 1986, 101 case studies of ERIP
participants were conducted. These case studies were
completed by experts in the field of technical
entrepreneurship and involved in-person interviews
with each participant in his or her place of employ-
ment. A standard protocol was used for each of these
case studies, so that comparable information was col-
lected. Unfortunately, neither of the two typologies
discussed in this paper was developed at the time of
these 101 case studies. However, the compilation of
10-20 pages of information on each participant and
his or her associated technology comprises a rich
source of information that is used below to illustrate
the typologies.
3.3.3 Quantitative survey data
The economic impacts of the program have been
evaluated at five points in time: in 1985, 1987, 1989,
1991, and 1993. (The latest of these evaluations is
described in Brown et al., 1994.) Each of these evalu-
ations involved a mail and/or telephone survey of
between 133 and 249 ERIP participants. Each time,
a special effort was made to contact those participants
who were thought to be most promising in terms of
the commercial success of their ERIP technologies.
These 'promising' participants were identified by fac-
ulty of the Commercialization Planning Workshops,
the case studies, DOE's invention coordinators, and
the results of previous surveying. Our ability to ensure
contact with the most promising participants indicates
considerable effectiveness.
Altogether, the progress of 442 of the ERIP techno-
logies has been tracked, types and amounts of funds
raised have been identified, and sales have been docu-
mented. Of the 101 program participants who were
the subject of the 1981-1986 case studies, 74 were
surveyed in 1985, 65 in 1987, 49 in 1989, 29 in 1991,
and 38 in 1993. The breadth of this quantitative data
offers a strong empirical basis for assessing the com-
mercial success of different types of inventors.
T~va'don Voi,1611o.4 177
 H.C. Liveuy et al.
4. TYPOLOGYOFSMALLBUSINESSANDINDEPENDENT
INVENTORS
4.1 The five types of inventors
On the basis of the 101 case studies of ERIP parti-
cipants conducted between 1981 and 1986, Rorke and
Livesay (1986) presented an analysis of success and
failure indicators that included inventor character-
istics. Among other results, this analysis discovered
patterns of characteristics that defined a typology of
ERIP participants. This typology includes five categ-
ories of inventors, presented below in our hypothes-
ized descending order of probable success in commer-
cialization: 2
1. Professional inventors: Those who consistently
support themselves financially through their cre-
ative efforts, nearly always by licensing or selling
their inventions to others.
2. Entrepreneurs with technology: Individuals who
see new technology as a tool for expanding exist-
ing markets or entering a new one, and create or
acquire a technology for that purpose. They may
themselves invent, but most often acquire the
inventions of others.
3. Industry-specific inventors: Those who create
specific technical improvements for an industry in
which they worked, usually for many years.
4. Grantsmen: People who earn a living through
research supported by Federal contracts. Within
their own frame of reference they behave entre-
preneurially, shifting focus as the source of Federal
dollars shifts.
5. Inveterate inventors: Individuals who invent as a
hobby or compulsion; they may or may not have
other employment; they may be retired. Most of
them work on a single technology for many years,
often for a lifetime.
In 1986, Rorke and Livesay believed that the
typology above sufficed to classify all the ERIP parti-
cipants studied. They hypothesized, moreover, that
the categories were discrete: that is, each inventor fit-
ted into one category or another without overlap and
that, once so classified, the categories provided a sum-
mary of inventor characteristics sufficiently accurate
to give "inventors in some [categories] a better claim
[on DOE support] than others...if probability of com-
2 One could perhaps call these inventors 'innovators', since all of them
fit that term in the Schumpeterian sense of being searchers for new or
novel ways to generate a product or service. However, our concern
here lies primarily with inventors. To abandon the term 'inventor'
would obscure the specific focal group of this study. When we refer
to 'entrepreneurs' we mean specifically those individuals defined as
'growth-oriented, innovative practitioners of aggressive management '.
Some inventors fit that definition, but most do not. Some entrepreneurs
invent, but most do not, except in the sense of the late A1 Shapero's
definition of an entrepreneur as someone who invents a business for
the purpose of growing it (Livesay, 1989).
178 TechnouSenVeL16 No.4
mercialization were a formal priority in...allocating
Program resources (Rorke and Livesay, 1986, p. 41).
The years since 1986 have provided the opportunity
to add significantly to the qualitative data from which
the typology was originally constructed. Additional
case studies have been completed, and more ERIP
participants have been processed through the Com-
mercialization Planning Workshops. The results
appear to confirm the typology and associated prop-
ositions advanced in 1986, with the modification that
inventors in some categories occasionally shift from
one category to another. Specifically, a grantsman or
an industry-specific inventor may occasionally meta-
morphose into an entrepreneur with technology, but
such transformations occur rarely.
Table 1 characterizes the values of each category
of inventor in terms of:
• emotional attachment to a particular technology;
• getting the technology into the market;
• creating a business organization to commercialize
the technology; and
• what defines success.
It has proved neither feasible nor necessary to attempt
weighted values for these characteristics. In practice,
a 'positive' attitude will drive an inventor toward the
market; a 'hostile' attitude will prevent the marketing
of the invention by the inventor him/herself; and
'indifference' will provide no impetus, nor will it pre-
sent an insurmountable barrier to commercialization.
4.2 ]be mentortypoleoinprac'dce
In order to test the clarity of the inventor typology
and its ability to forecast commercial success, two of
the authors read each of the 101 case studies and inde-
pendently assigned the 101 ERIP participants to
inventor categories. The results are presented in Table
2. The two raters agreed that 'industry-specific inven-
tors' and 'entrepreneurs with technology' were the
two most common types of ERIP inventors. They dis-
agreed about the frequency of the remaining types.
Rater 1 indicated that 'professional inventors' were
the next most common, while Rater 2's results sug-
gested that 'inveterate inventors' were the next most
common. The raters agreed on the assignment of 56
of the 101 participants to inventor categories; they
assigned the remaining 41 participants to different
categories. The largest number of disagreements was
between 'entrepreneurs with technology' and 'indus-
try-specific inventors'.
Initially, the 41 inconsistencies between the raters'
assignments of participants to categories caused some
concern about the clarity and validity of the typology
itself. A careful exploration of the causes for this lack
of inter-rater reliability, however, showed that these
inconsistencies derived primarily from procedural
issues in organizing the rating rest, rather than from

TABLE I. ERIP inventor typology
Type ofinventor
any given technology
Professional inventor indifferent
Entrepreneur with technology indifferent
Industry-specific inventor positive
Grantsman indifferent
Inveterate inventor positive
fundamental conceptual difficulties. Both raters car-
ried strong familiarity with the cases, the ERIP parti-
cipants, and the full range of evaluation materials into
this first attempt at the rating process. In making the
initial assignments to the typology categories, Rater
2 based his decisions on the full range of information
available, which included considerable personal
knowledge of some cases, knowledge that went far
beyond the information formally available in the pro-
gram evaluation materials. In contrast, Rater 1 made
his assignments solely on the basis of the narratives
contained in the 101 case studies, avoiding use of
both the information developed in subsequent evalu-
ation efforts and his own knowledge of the parti-
cipants and their commercialization efforts. In other
words, Rater 2 had approached the problem as one
calling for classification based on all information
available, whatever its source, while Rater 1 had
approached the task more narrowly, seeking to vali-
date the possibility of assignment based solely on the
information available in the 101 case studies.
The review of the test revealed just two conceptual
difficulties in the raters' approaches to the test. First,
the review showed the raters had used slightly differ-
ent criteria to interpret the definitions for the catego-
ries of 'professional inventors' and 'inveterate inven-
tors'. In particular, Rater 1 had taken an inventor's
record of generating royalties from technologies as
sufficient reason to assign a participant to category
'professional inventor'. In contrast, Rater 2 sought
evidence of royalties serving as the inventor' s primary
or sole source of income over an extended period
before making an assignment as 'professional inven-
tor'. Second, the raters had differed in their willing-
ness to accept commercialization success as a factor
in categorizing inventors as 'entrepreneurs with tech-
nology'. Rater 1 had understood the definition as
describing attitudes, regardless of the source of the
technology. Rater 2 had worked with a more narrow
definition based on his understanding of an entrepre-
neur as an individual who succeeds in the market after
acquiring technology for the purpose of commer-
cialization.
Thus, the exploration of the raters' differences in
Human factors and the innovaUonprocess
Attitude toward
reaching the market creating a business Success--defined as
positive indifferent making a living by inventing
positive positive creating and/or growing a business
positive/indifferent indifferent varies - - making money; acquiring
industry or peer approval
indifferent indifferent obtaining more grants
hostile hostile/indifferent continued ability to tinker
assigning participants led to the ability to refine the
taxonomy's definitions. Discussion of their inter-
pretive differences with other members of the larger
program evaluation team convinced the raters of the
need to undertake a second round of assignments
using consistent understandings of the definitions and
the need to base assignments strictly on the formal
program evaluation materials. On the issue of defining
'professional inventors', a record of royalties or the
sale of technology for development was accepted as
strong evidence for assigning inventors to this cate-
gory. Finally, in defining 'entrepreneurs with tech-
nology', the raters accepted evidence of entrepreneur-
ial attitudes - - rather than the source of technology - -
as the critical criterion.
The primary result of the first-round differences in
the raters' classifications, therefore, was a clarification
and refinement of understanding the importance of
attitudes and definitions of success (Table 1). As a
result of the raters' review, in fact, it became clear
that if the classifications summarized in Table 1 had
been applied rigorously in the first round of assign-
ments, many of the differences in categorization
would not have occurred.
Using the attitudinal framework developed in Table
1, the raters agreed on assignments to categories for
all but four of the ERIP participants represented in
the 101 case studies. In these cases, the raters did
not believe they had enough information to assign the
participants to a category. In the final classification of
the remaining 97 ERIP participants, 'industry-specific
inventors' were the most common type (N = 40), and
'entrepreneurs with technology' were a close second
(N= 30). Next in overall frequency came inveterate
inventors, grantsmen, and professional inventors.
Table 3 presents the frequency of each type of inven-
tor in the final classification.
4.3 RelaUonshipof inventortypesto commercialsuccess
This section uses the quantitative survey data to
assess the commercial success of the five types of
inventors. In particular, it uses six categorical meas-
ures of performance based on sales and fund-raising
TechnovatbnVoL16 No.4 179
H.C. Livesay et al.

TABLE 2. Preliminary classification of ERIP participants

Type of inventor Rater 2

Prefessional inven- Entrepreneur with Industry-specific Grantsman Inveterate inventor Total

tor technology inventor

Professional 3 2 4 2 1 12
inventor
Entrepreneur with 1 19 l0 4 34
technology
Rater 1 Industry-specific 8 27 3 5 43
inventor
Grantsman 2 2 3 7
Inveterate inventor I 4 5

Total 6 29 44 8 14 101

TABLE 3. Final classification of ERIP participants

Type of inventor Professional inventor Entrepreneur with Industry-specific Grantsman Inveterate inventor Total
technology inventor

Total 8 30 40 8 11 97

data. In the ERIP program, as in most new venture
environments, a few big winners are responsible for
a disproportionate percentage of the sales and fund-
raising activity. Thus, average values of data such as
sales and funds raised can be misleading because they
are dominated by one or a few big winners. The cat-
egorical measures are less influenced by these out-
liers. The measures are defined as follows:
• Market e n t r y - whether the technology has had
any sales;
• Significant s a l e s - whether the technology has
had cumulative sales greater than $500000;
• Private sector funds raised-- whether funds from
venture companies, commercial banks, or business
entities have been acquired;
• Personal funds raised--whether funds from
friends or family have been acquired;
• Public sector funds r a i s e d - whether funds from
governmental entities other than ERIP have been
acquired; and
• Any funds raised-whether any funds have been
raised, excluding non-financial contributions or
sweat equity.
Table 4 summarizes the levels of success by each
of the five inventor types. The 30 'entrepreneurs with
technology' experienced the greatest commercial suc-
cess, with 53% achieving some sales and 40% with
cumulative sales in excess of $500000. The fre-
quency with which they raised funds from various
sources, on the other hand, was average.
The 43 'industry-specific inventors' were the next
most successful type of inventor - - with 45% achiev-
ing sales and 23% reaching cumulative sales of
$500000 or more. The vast majority (84%) of these
inventors dedicated some personal resources to the
development of their technologies. In addition, a high
percentage (58%) were able to secure private-sector
funding, perhaps reflecting their knowledge of the
industry, including its major sources of R&D funding.
Rather than being most likely to reach the market,
the eight 'professional inventors' were third in rank
order among the five types. They were also third in
terms of achieving substantial sales, and were not
particularly noteworthy in terms of their ability to
acquire resources to develop their technologies. In
particular, they were least likely to invest personal
funds and least successful in raising funds from priv-
ate sources. On the other hand, they had the highest
frequency of public-sector fund raising.
The 11 'inveterate inventors' were next to the low-
est in terms of percentages that experienced any sales
(27%). However, they were the most successful at
attracting private-sector funding, which may reflect
the intensity and longevity of their inventing activi-
ties. In addition, 100% of these ERIP participants
contributed some amount of personal funding to the
development of their projects, reflecting their strong
desire to continue tinkering with the technology.
Finally, the eight 'grantsmen' have the lowest per-
centage of technologies in the market. Only one of
them (i.e., 13%) was successful. They were also the
least successful category of inventors in terms of rais-
ing funds. Their inability to attract subsequent priv-
ate- and public-sector funding is contrary to their fun-

],80 Tedmvalm Vol.16 No.4


TABLE 4, Commercial success of the five types of inventors
Entrepreneur with
technology
Number of cases 30
Percent of cases with sales 53
Percent of cases with sales -> $500000 40
Percent of cases with private-sector funding 53
Percent of cases with personal funding 67
Percent of cases with public-sector funding 17
other than ERIP
Percent of cases with funding other than 87
ERIP
damental definition of success--raising more capital.
To the extent that raising funds is facilitated by tan-
gible evidence of commercial progress, it is not sur-
prising that this group has had difficulty attracting
financial support.
In sum, while the rank order of the inventor types
is not precisely the forecasted order, the measured
performance of the five types of inventors is generally
consistent with the authors' predictions. 'Entre-
preneurs with technology', 'industry-specific inven-
tors', and 'professional inventors' are distinctly more
successful than 'inveterate inventors' or 'grantsmen'.
The greater success of the first three types, relative to
the latter two, is substantiated by a chi-square test of
association using either market entry or sales
exceeding $500 000 as success indicators. In addition,
the inventor types are distinct in terms of the sources
and magnitudes of the funds they've raised, and their
progress along these dimensions is consistent with the
attitudes and goals described in Table 1.
5. INVENTORMO11VA110NS
5,1 ]he thirteen types
Currently, it is possible to identify 13 types of
inventor motivations based on workshop faculty con-
tact with ERIP inventors. In one sense, these catego-
ries form the basis for a motivational taxonomy. How-
ever, they cannot be taken as an all-encompassing
typology in the same sense as was described for the
ERIP inventor typology offered earlier. These categ-
ories are not inclusive; they do not cover that majority
of workshop participants for whom the workshop
experience represents a straightforward step toward
the market. These categories primarily describe those
workshop participants who face conflict between their
personal goals and the commercialization of tech-
nology under the rubrics endorsed in the ERIP work-
shops.
This inventor motivational taxonomy has, in fact,
grown out of the ERIP need for conceptual tools in
dealing with program participants who express reluc-
tance to adopt what seem obvious, best-practice
Humanfactors and the innovaUonprocess
Industry-specific Professional Inveterate inventor Grantsrnan
inventor inventor
40 8 11 8
45 38 27 13
23 25 18 13
58 50 73 38
88 50 100 63
15 25 18 13
95 88 100 88
approaches to commercialization planning. It has
been developed primarily on the basis of more than
750 hours of individual consulting interviews and
formal plan evaluations that two of the authors (Lux
and Livesay) provided to approximately 400 parti-
cipants attending 35 ERIP workshops between 1984
and 1993. The motivational categories derive from
attempts to formalize understanding of non-standard
approaches to commercialization planning and are
meant to capture the most common motivational
problems consultants encounter in dealing with inven-
tors involved in the commercialization of technology.
Thus, these motivational categories are neither
exhaustive nor exclusive. The taxonomy does not
seek to encompass what might be described as typical
entrepreneurial motivations, and there may well be
additional motivational types yet to be identified.
Likewise, rather than seeking to capture best practices
and the patterns of successful entrepreneurship in an
encompassing scheme, this motivational typology
specifically seeks to establish nominal categories that
can serve to identify patterns of failure and predict
poor entrepreneurial performance. It is intended prim-
arily as a tool for developing program management
strategies in consulting, planning, and contract admin-
istration. In that sense, one of the primary strengths
of this typology as a management tool lies in the fact
that more than one nominal category may quite fre-
quently be used to describe a particular inventor. In
such cases, the key to commercialization planning is
found in a balanced understanding of complex motiv-
ations involving one or more of the following motiv-
ational categories:
• Art t e c h n o l o g i s t - An inventor who seeks public
recognition of unique skills and knowledge
through the innovation process.
• Boss - - An inventor or entrepreneur who seeks the
lifestyle of the corporate executive as a primary
motivation for pursuing the commercialization of
technology.
• Cathedral b u i l d e r - An experienced professional
engineer who perceives American 'business prac-
tice' as mandating slipshod, inferior engineering.
• C r u s a d e r - - A socially conscious inventor seeking
TechnevatJonVoL16 No.4 181
H.C. Livesay et al.
to use the innovation process as an instrument for
social reform.
@ Factor - - An inventor or entrepreneur held within
narrowly defined decision-making limits by legal
constraints or the limitations of a business relation-
ship.
• Grantsman--Laboratory research spinner for
whom continued research support furnishes the
only real innovation process goal. (NB: It is
important to distinguish between grantsmen and
research entrepreneurs. See below.)
• H o b b y i s t - - A n inventor or entrepreneur seeking
to avoid commitment of personal effort and
resources to the innovation process.
• Houdini - - An inventor or entrepreneur who seeks
to enter the innovation process primarily to avoid,
or escape, an unpleasant alternative.
• N a r c i s s i s t - - A n industry-specific inventor seek-
ing peer recognition as a primary reward from the
commercialization of technology.
• P i o n e e r - An inventor whose primary motivation
lies in the innovation process activity in itself.
• The ' P r o ' - - A former corporate executive who
defines the innovation process in simplistic terms.
• 'Prodigal-son' i n v e n t o r - - An inventor seeking to
create a family business as a moral or ethical
extension of private life.
• Research entrepreneur--Laboratory researcher
seeking a new, private-sector forum for research.
In some respects these nominal categories overlay
the ERIP inventor typology discussed earlier. 'Nar-
cissists', for example, tend to be industry-specific
inventors. Likewise, both the academic grantsman and
the research entrepreneur are forms of 'grantsmen' as
described in the ERIP inventor typology. There are,
however, important differences between the ERIP
inventor typology and the motivational factors defined
here. 'Hobbyists', for instance, are defined by their
unwillingness to commit needed time, money, atten-
tion, or knowledge to a specific project and can appear
in any of the five nominal categories that define the
ERIP inventor typology. With other motivational fac-
tors such as are defined in the 'art technologist',
'cathedral builder', 'crusader', or 'boss', a lack of
overlay with any one category in the ERIP inventor
typology is not so important as the fact that in these
cases the two sets of categorizations speak to entirely
different approaches to understanding ERIP inventors.
The ERIP inventor typology speaks to the common
factors across inventors' life experiences; these
motivational categories seek to particularize attitudes
and personal approaches to the innovation process.
The value of exploring the particular and personal
in inventors' motivations is found in the recognition
that while there are commonly recognizable
approaches to technology development and the inno-
vation process, there are no universally accepted for-
mulas for success. Inventors and entrepreneurs must
make choices at each step in the innovation process:
182 TNhNvalmn¥oL]6 No.4
choices of product definition, technical development,
market strategy, and organization. The choices inven-
tors face make movement toward commercialization
highly elastic.
The same technology can be commercialized in the
slow and steady growth of a family business, through
the high-powered world of venture capitalists, or
under license to corporate America. Moreover, in
most cases, ERIP can legitimately support a particular
technology under a wide variety of commercialization
scenarios. Given such circumstances, common sense
suggests that the fastest and most effective technology
deployment for ERIP-supported technologies is likely
to occur where the inventor or entrepreneur respon-
sible pursues a course that provides personal satisfac-
tion. Where possible, in other words, helping inven-
tors to realize their personal goals should help ERIP
to meet its programmatic goals.
$2 V'~nettesi ~ moUvationalfactors
Motivational factors can play a critical role in com-
mercialization planning and ultimately in market suc-
cess, a point that can be made clearly through brief
commentary on motivational factors as they appear
among ERIP inventors. Technical descriptions and
inventors' identities have been masked in the vig-
nettes that follow, but otherwise the presentation of
the motivational factors summarizes the analysis
offered in three recent case studies of ERIP inventors.
'Carl Dever' is an inventor whose life story shows
consistent patterns of self-reliance and strong commit-
ment. Brought up in a solid middle-class and Mid-
western family environment, Dever first showed his
independence when he chose the military over college
in the early 1960s. On his return from Vietnam, he
once again decided against college and became a self-
professed 'hippie carpenter' seeking alternative life-
styles in the pristine wilderness byways of the Amer-
ican West. Twenty years in the construction of
energy-efficient and environmentally benign housing
gave Dever a strong feel for the practical, day-to-day
realities of comfortable living in environmentally sen-
sitive areas. Over that time 'hippie carpentry' gave
way to 'yuppie contracting', and by the late 1970s
Dever was roaming the West building environmen-
tally benign housing in remote areas for those wealthy
enough to afford the luxury of comfortable living in
pristine wildernesses.
Along with his knowledge in specialized areas
involving modularized and self-contained housing
systems, Dever's commitment to environmental activ-
ism also grew during the 1970s. When he reached the
point where he felt it was time to build his own home
and settle down, he chose one of the most remote and
scenic areas in North America. Building his energy-
efficient, self-contained house entirely from recycled
building materials, Dever took pride in doing the
work himself. Not coincidentally, Dever's desire to

settle down more or less paralleled his development
of the technology that would become his ERIP
invention--key components in a modularized,
environmentally benign housing system.
Dever carried the patterns of his life into the cre-
ation of his new business, which involved the manu-
facturing and marketing of components in a plumbing
system. He frequented yard sales and surplus auctions
to equip his office and shop. When the manufacturing
of cabinets to house his equipment required laying-
up composite materials, he taught himself new skills.
In selecting target markets, he has shied away from
mass production and low-cost housing and concen-
trated on the specialized, high-end housing niche in
his own geographical region. Rather than move his
manufacturing facility to an urban environment where
he can find skilled labor, he has sought to develop
local labor resources. Overall, the story of Dever's
ERIP commercialization effort has shown patterns
that mark him both as a 'pioneer' and as a 'crusader'.
In manufacturing, he seeks to do everything
himself-- even when such an approach proves costly
and time consuming. Such a drive marks him as a
'pioneer'. In marketing, he defines a narrow niche and
justifies his choice on the basis of his
environmentalism--making him a 'crusader'.
From the perspective of the ERIP inventor
typology, Carl Dever's work experience and the nat-
ure of his invention clearly mark him as an industry-
specific inventor. He is positive in his attitudes toward
his technology and in his desire to reach the market,
but indifferent toward the idea of business, except as
the vehicle for carrying his technology to market. On
the basis of the attributes associated with industry-
specific inventors, Dever would appear to show the
characteristics that predict market success. Indeed, his
technology has achieved sales. The significant feature
of the Dever case, however, lies not in the fact of
sales, but rather in the limited level of sales, a lever
still insufficient to sustain market presence. Dever's
business is carried forward primarily by government
grants and loans that he has stretched far beyond the
ordinary by his frugality.
Advisors, consultants, potential joint-venture part-
ners, and program officers in various foundations and
government agencies have all seen significant busi-
ness potential in Dever's technology and the products
that might flow from it. Yet the market potential is
not being realized. Across a decade of technical
development and limited marketing Dever has
resisted advice that would cause him to violate the
behavioral patterns expressing the motivational fac-
tors that mark him both as a 'pioneer' and as a 'cru-
sader'. Dever has resisted advice to sub-contract
manufacturing or to license his technology to an
industry leader, even when the advice has been
backed by offers of funding and support. Likewise,
he has resisted advice to move his manufacturing
facility or shift his market strategy. For this inventor,
Humanfactors and the innovationprocess
the 'pioneer's' desire to do it all justifies slow and
cumbersome handling of composite materials. His
'crusader' desire to see the technology employed in
environmentally 'pure' applications causes him to shy
away from industrial markets and markets for low-
cost rural housing. Either motivational factor would
place serious restrictions on Dever's ability to reach
sustainable market penetration in his commercializ-
ation effort. In combination, they make it difficult to
predict whether Dever will ever achieve more than
marginal success.
'Arnold Smith' is another ERIP inventor for whom
his own motivational characteristics seem to pose
commercialization obstacles. In the ERIP inventor
typology, Smith is a 'professional inventor'. He
defined his commercialization project in terms of a
market problem, and he has shown flexibility in
adopting various technical approaches in seeking a
product solution. Smith clearly wants to get his pro-
duct to market, but seeks to do so through licensing.
Smith is hostile toward the creation of a business. He
wants royalty income from his invention, and in fact
has received significant royalty income from other
products created in his career as an inventor. In short,
Smith shows every sign of the fact that he is a 'pro-
fessional inventor'.
The approach he has taken to commercializing the
ERIP technology mark his motivations as those of an
'art technologist'. Trained in one highly specialized
field of engineering, Smith is seeking to commer-
cialize a product in an industry that relies heavily on
professional engineering that falls outside his expert-
ise. Smith argues that, for the specific problem his
technology addresses, his engineering expertise and
theoretical knowledge are superior to the industry
standards. He has based his commercialization plan
on that assertion, consistently refusing to accept third-
party evaluation from industry experts. Smith may be
correct in his assertions, but he has carried his cam-
paign to convince the 'industry experts' of his
superior knowledge far beyond the point where he is
simply working to establish and demonstrate the tech-
nical merit of his product. For Smith, the project to
commercialize has become a campaign to vindicate
his expertise and prove the industry experts wrong.
Adoption of his technology in its target market
depends heavily on acceptance among the industry's
professional engineers. As long as Smith persists in
seeking vindication of his professional expertise
against the industry's engineers, he is laying major
obstacles in his own path.
'John Miller' is a third ERIP inventor whose case
reveals the significance of motivational factors in the
innovation process. Miller retired from a major cor-
poration in the early 1980s after a long and successful
career. Rather than sitting back idle during his retire-
ment, however, Miller used his new freedom to start
a small company that manufactured a novel piece of
industrial process control equipment he had invented.
Tedmval~n VoL16 No.4
 H.C. I ivesayet al.
As an 'industry-specific inventor', he knew what the
market required. Indeed, Miller's product did
extremely well in start-up. This inventor, however,
refused opportunities to grow beyond a relatively
small scale.
Case study research revealed Miller to be a 'prodi-
gal son' inventor; that is, he had created his business
in order to provide a livelihood for a ne'er-do-well
offspring who had reached middle age without ever
holding a steady job. Miller, the inventor, felt that if
he could create a small, easily managed business to
support his offspring, he would be leaving the best
possible inheritance. The desire to stay small and to
keep this business small and simple, however, proved
impossible to realize. The inventor and his son earned
a considerable income from the business over several
years, but the nature of the product was such that the
business had either to grow or to die. Faced with that
choice, Miller chose to close the business, and the
technology disappeared from the market.
'Prodigal son' inventors are committed to a family
business and usually set definite growth limits. These
inventors are almost always 'industry-specific inven-
tors' whose lifetime savings are sufficient to under-
write a start-up. They tend to have very high success
rates as long as the businesses they start follow the
growth trajectories they plot. If the offspring leave the
business, however, or if the business must grow
beyond the scale they've defined, 'prodigal son'
inventors are likely to abandon a project rather than
pursue any other course. They take a calculated
approach to the innovation process, and they appear to
enjoy considerable success as measured in their own
terms. Indeed, as a working hypothesis, it is even
possible to suggest that they may be among the most
successful group of ERIP inventors. Certainly, as a
possible research topic, the question of whether 'fam-
ily businesses' enjoy significantly greater success
among small business and independent inventors is
one well worth pursuing.
These categorizations of participants in Commer-
cialization Planning Workshops suggest numerous
and diverse approaches to defining the success and
failure of ERIP participants. As the 'Smith' case sug-
gests, 'art technologists' would seem to have only
minimal chances of success unless they come to
accept the need for third-party verification from
recognized professionals. The 'boss' and the 'pro'
both want to overcommit scarce resources to overhead
and elaborate organizational formation. 'Crusaders'
need to focus on manageable projects. 'Cathedral
builders', 'pioneers', and 'hobbyists' all have distinc-
tive difficulties with team-building and working with
outsiders. 'Narcissists', 'hobbyists', and the 'Houdini'
fail to find appropriate levels of personal
commitment--the 'narcissist' and 'hobbyist' show
reluctance to commit, the 'Houdini' is too willing to
push forward on the basis of inadequate resources.
'Factors' suffer from a related, but special problem
184 Tedlileva'denVd. 16 No.4
because they simply have limited control over the
allocation of resources. 'Academic grantsmen' and
'research entrepreneurs' form a special class of ERIP
inventors, and the need to give special attention to
these professional researchers is an issue of long-
standing importance to the program.
6. IMPLICAllONSFORPROMO'I1NGTH£ SUCCESSFUL
COMMERCIALiZA'IIONOF INNOVATIOHS
The typology of inventors presented in this paper,
with its accompanying analysis of underlying inventor
motivations, has implications both for the operation
of the ERIP and for the larger arena of technology
transfer. For the program, it underlines the importance
of attitudes toward the market, and argues strongly
for priority in processing and funding for 'industry-
specific inventors', 'professional inventors', and
'entrepreneurs with technology'. On the other hand,
support for 'grantsmen' and 'inveterate inventors'
should be staged conditional upon demonstrable
evidence of commitment to commercialization, pref-
erably in the form of a joint venture to provide the
indispensable assistance of an energetically entre-
preneurial partner.
For technology transfer professionals beyond DOE,
the typology may ultimately provide a means of cate-
gorizing inventors seeking assistance, clearly argues
for a prioritization of resource allocation, and points
to strategies to deal with members of the disparate
categories. For example, professional inventors, anxi-
ous to profit but indifferent to creating a business, will
neither need nor seek venturing advice, but will
actively push forward along promising paths to
licensing. Experienced entrepreneurs with technology
may lack nothing but capital, and would make good
use of it, while funds advanced to an inveterate inven-
tor might actually retard prospects of commercializ-
ation.
Finally, for firms seeking new technologies as
sources of innovation, the typology suggests that
inventors, like professional R&D managers,
entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists, come in several
identifiable varieties. Understanding these
d i f f e r e n c e s - especially in terms of motivation and
definition of s u c c e s s - might catalyze a positive
relationship from which could eventuate profitable
market entry of new products and services. In fact,
the Energy-Related Inventions Program offers several
examples of such success in which the entrepreneur-
ing partner's sensitivity to the inventor's human as
well as financial needs clearly made the difference
between success and failure. Logically the same sen-
sitivities characterize inventors at large, and thus the
ERIP-based typology has relevance in the wider
world beyond the program.

REI:ERi:NCES
Aitken, H.G.J. (1976). Syntony and Spark. Princeton
Press, Princeton, NJ.
Aram, J.D. (1989). Attitudes and behaviors of infor-
mal investors toward early-state investments, tech-
nology-based ventures, and coinvestors. Journal of
Business Venturing, 4, 333-347.
Birch, D. (1993), quoted in: Where good jobs grow.
Fortune (14 June).
Birley, S. (1986). The role of new firms: births, deaths,
and job generation. Strategic Management Journal,
7, 361-376.
Brown, M.A. and Major, C.H. (1990). Technology-
transfer strategies of DOE's conservation programs.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 15, 33-40.
Brown, M.A., Livesay, H.C., Lux, D.S. and Wilson,
C.R. (1993). Demonstrations: the missing link in
government-sponsored energy technology deploy-
ment. Technology in Society, 15, 185-205.
Bruun, M.O. (1980). Technology transfer and
entrepreneurship. In: Sahal, D. (ed.). Research
Development and Technological Innovation. Lex-
ington Books, Lexington, MA.
Cooper, A.C., Woo, C.Y. and Dunkleberg, W.C.
(1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial size of
firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 317-332.
Danila, N. (1989). Strategic evaluation and selection
of R&D projects. R&D Management, 19, 47-62.
Davidsson, P. (1989). Entrepreneurship and after? A
study of growth willingness in small firms. Journal
of Business Venturing, 4, 211-226.
Dubini, P. (1988a). The influence of motivations on
business start-ups: some hints for public policies.
Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 11-26.
Dubini, P. (1988b). Which venture capital backed
entrepreneurs have the best chances of succeeding?
Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 124-132.
Ehretsmann, J., Hinkly, A., Minty, A. and Pearson,
A.W. (1989). The commercialization of stagnant
technologies. R&D Management, 19, 231-242.
Ellin, E. (1979). The role of small business in
research, development, technological change, and
innovation in New England. In: Timmons, J.A. and
Gumperts, D.E. (eds.). A Region's Struggling
Savior: Small Business in New England. Small
Business Administration, Washington, DC.
Galbraith, J.R. (1982). Designing the innovative
organization. Organizational Dynamics, 10(3), 5-
25.
Gartner, W.B., Mitchell, T.R. and Vesper, K.H.
(1989). A taxonomy of new business ventures.
Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 169-186.
Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P. and Wilemon, D. (1986). A
model for studying R&D-marketing interface in
the product innovation process. Journal of Market-
ing, 50, 7-17.
Khan, A.M. and Manopichetwattana, V. (1989). Mod-
Humanfactors and the innov on process
els for distinguishing innovative and noninnovative
small firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4,
187-196.
Kirzner, I.M. (1983). Entrepreneurship and the future
of capitalism. In: Backman, J. (ed.).
Entrepreneurship and the Outlook for America.
Free Press, New York.
Kurz, M. (1983). Entrepreneurial activity in a complex
economy. In: Ronen, J. (ed.). Entrepreneurship.
D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Livesay, H.C. (1988). Accelerated innovation through
education programs tailored for independent and
small business inventors: the American experience.
In: Renfrew, K.M. and Blacks, R.D. (eds.). Pro-
ceedings of the Third National Australian Small
Business and Entrepreneurship Research Confer-
ence. Institute of Industrial Research. New Castle,
Australia.
Livesay, H.C. (1989). Entrepreneurial dominance in
businesses large and small, past and present. Busi-
ness History Review, 63 (Spring), 1-21.
Livesay, H.C., Rorke, M.L. and Lux, D.S. (1989).
From experience: technical development and the
innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 6, 268-281.
Maidique, M. (1980). Entrepreneurs, champions, and
technological innovation. Sloan Management
Review, 21, 59-76.
Martin, M.J.L. (1984). Managing Technological Inno-
vation and Entrepreneurship. Reston Publishing,
Reston, VA.
McGuinness, N.W. and Conway, H.A. (1989). Manag-
ing the search for new product concepts: a strategic
approach. R&D Management, 19, 297-308.
Nonaka, I. and Yamanouchi, T. (1989). Managing
innovation as a self-renewing process. Journal of
Business Venturing, 4, 299-315.
Roberts, E.B. and Fusfeld, A.R. (1981). Staffing the
technology-based organization. Sloan Management
Review, 22(3), 19-34.
Rorke, M.L. and Livesay, H.C. (1986). A Longitudinal
Examination of the Energy-related Inventions Pro-
gram. Mohaw Research Corporation, Rockville,
MD.
Samuelson, W. and Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo
bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, 1, 7-59.
Slocum, J.W. and Sims, H.P. (1980). A typology for
integrating technology, organization, and job
design. Human Relations, 33, 193-212.
Wild, R. (1990). Technology and organization struc-
tures. In: Wild, R. (ed.). Technology and Manage-
ment. Nichols Publishing, New York.
Harold Livesay is Clifford A. Taylor Professor in Liberal Arts at
Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. A business his-
torian, Prof. Livesay has conducted extensive research and publishing
in the area of entrepreneurial management and the commercialization
of new technologies.
TechnovationN , 16 No.4
 H.C. Livesay et al,
Marilyn Brown is Deputy Director of the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory
in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Dr Brown's
research has focused on issues surrounding
the commercialization of new energy tech-
nologies and frameworks and methods to
evaluate energy conservation programs.
186 TedmvaiionVol.16 No.4
David Lux is Associate Professor of History
at Bryant College in Smithfield, Rhode
Island. Prof. Lux specializes in the history
of science and technology, conducting
research on sources of technology and the
innovation process.
'I,ANSLATIONSOF ABSTRACTS
de 48 empresas nuevas que recientemente abrieron
sus puertas en Korea.
Los resultados de este an~ilisis demuestran que el
rendimiento correspondiente tiende a ser elevado
cuanta mds formaci6n y experiencia tenga el empresa-
rio en el campo especffico de negocios. Sin embargo,
el rendimiento tiende a ser bajo cuando un empresario
nada m~is tiene experiencia de arranque de negocio,
de administraci6n y de alto crecimiento sin tener una
formaci6n acadEmica.
Se percibe un efecto similar en el crecimiento de
la empresa. E1 empresario con conocimiento profe-
sional del producto, adquirido a travEs de su experien-
cia previa relacionada con ese producto, tiene un
efecto positivo sobre el crecimiento. Sin embargo, si
el empresario tiene experiencia de arranque de nego-
cio, de administraci6n y de alto crecimiento, pero le
faltan conocimientos de negocios, el efecto en el cre-
cimiento es mils bien negativo.
Podemos entonces concluir que un buen entendimi-
ento del producto es imprescindible para el 6xito del
negocio, mientras que lanzarse a un negocio nuevo
nada mils con una experiencia previa limitada rela-
cionada con temas de administraci6n puede ser pelig-
roso y llevar a una empresa al fracaso.
Human factors and the innovation
process
H.C. Livesay, D.S. Lux and M.A. Brown
Technovation, 16 (4)(1996) 173-186
Facteurs humainsel processusd'innovaUon
R um6
Le but de ce papier est de dEcrire deux typologies
de facteurs humains qui puissent permettre d'ex-
pliquer le processus technique d'innovation et d'il-
lustrer leurs potentiels prEvisibles ~ chacune.
La premiere dEfinit cinq categories d'inventeurs et
se base sur la faqon dont ils envisagent le succEs et
les attitudes correspondantes qu'ils adoptent face h la
technologie, h la pEnEtration du marchE et la creation
d'une entreprise. En faisant diminuer l'ordre de
succ~s prEvisible, on peut parler de cinq types diffE-
rents: les entrepreneurs avec technologie, les inven-
teurs spEcifiques ?~ l'industrie, les inventeurs pro-
fessionnels, ceux qui sont finances par l'Etat et les
inventeurs invEtErEs.
La seconde typologie caractErise les motivations
212 TedalovaSonVoL16 No.4
qui sous-tendent les choix des inventeurs au cours du
dEveloppement de leurs technologies. Les motivations
des inventeurs doivent ~tre prises en consideration par
les personnels d'encadrement charges des pro-
grammes d'innovation, car leurs succ~s exigent un
certain degrE de chevauchement entre les buts fixes
l'avance et la definition personnelle de l'inventeur de
ce qu'est le succEs.
Ces deux typologies peuvent aider ces persoianels
d'encadrement a manier les ressources rares des
inventeurs avec un fort potentiel de rEussite commer-
ciale. Ce papier indique aussi les diffErents types
d'assistance qui seront les plus instrumentales afin
d'accE1Erer la commercialisation des nouvelles tech-
nologies.
La capacit6 de ces typologies h expliquer les taux
de succEs dans le dEveloppement commercial de tech-
nologies nouvelles est illustrEe par l'utilisation de
donnEes provenant des petites entreprises et des
inventeurs indEpendants ayant particip6 au Pro-
gramme des Inventions en relation avec l'Energie
[Energy-Related Inventions Programm (ERIP)].
L'ERIP est un programme fEdEral qui fonctionne con-
jointement avec le Department of Energy amEricain
et le National Institute of Standards and Technology
et est conqu pour soutenir le dEveloppement d'inven-
tions non nuclEaires h fort potentiel afin d'Economiser
de l'Energie.
MenschlicheFaktorenund der Innovationsproze8
Abriss
Das Ziel dieser Arbeit besteht darin, zwei Typolo-
gien menschlicher Faktoren, die uns helfen, den tech-
nischen Innovationsprozel3 zu erklaren, zu beschre-
iben und ihre Vorhersagekraft zu illustrieren. Die
erste Typologie definiert fUnf Kategorien von Erfind-
ern basierend auf der Erfolgsansicht der Erfinder und
ihrer entsprechenden Einstellung zu Technologie,
Marktzugang und Firmengrtindung. In abnehmender
Reihenfolge yon wahrscheinlichem technischen Inno-
vationserfolg sind diese fiinf Typen "Unternehmer mit
Technologie", "industriespezifische Erfinder", "pro-
fessionelle Erfinder", "Stipendiaten" und
'Gewohnheitserfinder". Die zweite Typologie klassi-
fiziert die Motivation, die der Wahl der Erfinder bei
der Entwicklung ihrer Technologien zugrundeliegt.
Erfindermotivation mul3 von Managern von Inno-
vationsprogrammen berticksichtigt werden, da der
Erfolg eines jeden Innovationsprogramms erfordert,
dab es ein gewisses AusmaB an Uberschneidung
zwischen den Zielen des Programms und der Erfolgs-
definition des Erfinders gibt. Diese Typologien
kEnnen Managern von Innovationsprogrammen
helfen, knappe Ressourcen in Richtung der Erfinder
mit der grOl3ten Wahrscheinlichkeit von kommerziel-
lem Erfolg zu lenken. Es zeigt auEerdem die Art von