• • •
Gore's innovation culture
Victoria Cooper and Michael Lecky
\X'hen \X"ilbul L. Gore discon:red (Iut
DuPont'~ Teflon>Si could he used lU
make computer ribbon cahle.:: in~lIla­
lion he thought he \\'as ontO a good
thing. Out DuPo11l wa:,n'[ convinced ~o
Gore left to ~tart a company in hi~
ba:-.emenl which i~ now a kader in the
field of a(h'allced materiab devdop"
111<::n1. \'\~ L. Gore & Atl~oci;Hes j:., ranked
by Forbes as one of the lOp 200 pri-
yatdy held US companies. it has
worldwide sale... in exce~s of S1.3') bil-
lion. The compan)'"s innovative prod-
lKl.., r.lllge from artificial arlt.:ries to
dental floss to the \vaterprooClbreath-
ahlc:: and Windproof fabrin that moun-
taineers trust with their Ii\'t::s.
Robert Lroll I-Ienn is currenllr the
company's global R&D Ie<lder. In this
4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Materials Today
intervie\v he explains how Gore's
deeply held values underpin tht: com·
pany's product developmelll and man·
ufacturing activities.
Gore has been described as having a
very innovative culture. can you tell us
a little bit about how you achieve this
innovativeness?
Henn: !l's true. Gore is noted for its
innovation. and our slogan as a compa-
ny is "Creative Technologies
\X1orldwide-: I like co make a distinc-
tion ber\veen creativity and innova-
tion, Ihough. I think innov:lIion is the
path, or the process, that takes creativ-
ity and translates it into commercial
products, They're separate kinds of
activitks. creativity and innovation.
and people with different skills do
them;:It Gore.\X1e don't centralize these
people within the company. They're
distributed around our world geogra-
phy. And the people who are from the
creative or inventive side come from
all over the organization. as well-from
manufacturing and R&D.
One of the things that we've been con·
sciously doing this past year is to have.::
a cross-section of ad hoc creative types
in our core technology areas gather
logelher for one week at least once a
quaner and work on prototyping some
of the ideas people have had. \X1e might
have read about some new technology
in the literature and wondered if it
might fit with our ePTFE-based tech-
nology. Or maybe we've had a

manufacturing constraint or a product
issue that people could make some
progress 011 if they had some time to
foclls 011 it This group of people will
go \vherever in the Gore world thaI
the tools they'll need are at their dis-
posal.The breakthrough foclis in qucs-
tion CQuid be around a product con-
cept, a process, or a technology. We'll
want 1O knmv. "Is it real? If so. how do
we !ever.tge it? How do \ve incorpo-
rate it inlO the' structures we make?"
This initiative is alreacly producing
results. Since we starred it last spring, it
has resulted in multiple patent filings,
and twO product avenues that wc're
going down now. Until those groups
starred getting together. the ideas were
there, but the reduction to pract'ice of
the ideas - in other words. the proto-
typing· wasn't happening, A lot of our
creative process work is carried out via
protot)'ping, doing something hands-
on. It's not abstract - just haVing ideas
or advancing science. For me, a very
healthy definition of know-how is the
'know what'; in practice, That is what
we're trying to disseminate, \'(i'e have a
lot of people here who have a lot of
theoretical knowledge, and that's what
happens \vith an organization our size
that attracts the kind of people we do:
We can always tell each other what we
are able 10 do. So we know the "\vhal.~;
But it's nOt until you actually do it, and
practice it,and find out what you don't
know, and redo it, that you learn how
10 do it-that you learn the know-bow.
It sounds like what an artist does,
Henn: Yes, I'd go along with thaI. A 101
of our creative types here have a lot
more artistic kinds of skill sets than the
skill sets that pure scientists or engi-
neers or business people have, One fel-
low in our medical division, for
instance, comes out of a junkyard
b;:lCkground, He's reaUy good with his
hands, He's always been good at taking
OIher people's junk and turning it inlO
something useful. That's a really cre-
ative process.
At the heart of our work is relation-
ships, So that means knowing people;
knOWing what they're good at and
what they're bad at, and playing to
their strengths and complementing
Materials Today - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5
their weaknesses. And that, in turn,
means doing things together. That
sounds simple, bur we take the expres-
sion 'hands-on'; literally.
Do you have enough good ideas? Can
there ever be too many good ideas?
Henn: \'<'ell. we certainly are nOl con-
strained by a lack of ideas or creativi-
ty, We have a surplus of both. and
therein lies our problem. All the ideas
aren't gre;:1t ideas. And e\'en the great
ones may be great 20 years from now.
but not now, They may not be com-
mercializable today. They may not be
profitable today. How do you SOrt
through them? We have to choose
among them. How do you do your
project selection?
The reality is that you're much healthi-
er not taking on 20 projects at one
time. \Vhat we try 10 get people to
understand is that it's nOt important
how many projects we're working on.
\Xfhar's important is how many proj-
ects we complete.
How do you decide what to invest in?
Do you prioritize?
Henn: A lot of people talk about pri-
oritization, but I think it's garbage. I
don't think it's the way human
beings work; this sense of 'one, two.
three. four'; and four being a lower
priority than (WO, It's not the way \ve
live our lives. Well. what we're saying
with this one-two-three priority sce-
nario is. take care of one, and take
care of two, before you gel to three
or four. But you may never get to
them. The realiry is that somewhere.
conceptually, \ve draw a line. and we
say, "Those things above that line. I'm
going to do the absolute best I can to
mail1tain,~:
Then you see priorities as time-sharing
arrangements?
I-Ienn: They're not even that. The best
they offer is conflict reSOlution. And
even at that, they don't achieve what
you're after. What we're trying to S;])'
with the 'above the line'; concept is
that if we think we h;]ve a great idea -
a diamond in the rough -let'S resource
it well and quickly. If a project is 'above
~.-
the line'; in our vernacular, we're say-
ing we're going to do everything we
can as qUickly as we can to find out
how viable it is.
How do you sort the good from the
excellent?
Henn: Now you're gelling into lhe
decision-making process. It depends
on what kind of project it is. what kind
of scope it has, etc,. how you sort
them. You ask yourself. \vhere are we
resourcing projects in the organiza-
tion? Are we resourcing them at a plant
level? A division level? A corporate
level? Now you're starting to get intO
portfolio management. If you don't
have a decision-making group in place.
you can have people running off in all
di.rections or feeling paralyzed that
they can't get" any resources, Our
answer is to define that if a project
requires a certain magnitude of effort.
or a certain magnitude of change over
\vhat we are currently doing, then we
want it 10 go through a specific deci-
sion-making process as to whether it's
above the line or nol. At that point, if
it's below the line, we say simply, 'no
\vork'; no resources.
A5 you grow, do you find that the num-
ber of your projects grows as well?
Henn: No, The number of resourced
projects is getting smaller. not larger.
Instead of the thousands we had five
or six years ago, we now have hun-
dreds.It's an order of magnitude small-
er.The above the line thinking has cre-
ated a discipljne in project selecUon.
What we're trying to do here is create
choice, And the way we find OUl
whether an organization within Gore
is c.xercising choice is to ask the lead-
ers what \vere the last three things
they said no to. If you're nOt saying no,
you're not really c.'Xercising choice, are
you?
Gore has been focusing on one core
technology since its founding in 1958,
hasn't it?
Henn:Yes, we're baseel on PTFE [poly-
tetrafluoroelhyleneJ, expanded PTFE
[micro- porous PTfEJ. and olher pro-
prietary f1uoropolymers, That is at rhe
heart of who we are, PTFE is a \'ery
 Gore's innovation culture
special polymer, and whal we are
engaged in is exploiting it and leverag-
ing it into multiple industries and mul-
tiple products.
There aren't many companies that
have relied on one technology for so
long, are there?
Henn: I haven't researched it, but, yes,
there are only a few others that come
quickly to mind. One is Kodak, with sil-
ver halide.Another might be the subset
of DuPont that invelHed nylon.
How do you motivate a whole organi·
zatioa to stay focused on one material?
Wouldn't brilliant people, of whom
you seem to have so many, want to
bust out of that?
Henn: It is a problem from time to
time, but it's less of a problem today.
Since the early 19905, when we really
e..'Xamined using other materials. we've
been clear that the strJ.tegic direction
of the company is to dig back deeper
into the mine of PTFE as a basic male-
rial. Bob Gore, the founder's son and
current Chairman of the Board, and
others believe fundamentally that we
have yet to sCr.l.tch the surface of
PTFE.And there is nobody in the world
that is better at understanding, pro-
cessing, and using PTFE than Gore, so
we are committed to leveraging that as
our competitive ""capon.
\'Vhat has happened now is that the
creative people are turned on to the
opportunities. We've had a renewal of
commitment to thiS basic material.You
have to realize that we're a very mate-
rials-based company. \'Ve use a lot of
materials in addition to PTFE. \'(!e have
composition patents. \'Ve manufacture
in unique ways using additional tech-
nologies that make this possible. These
enabling technologies rypically use
PTFE and deliver a finished product.
\'Ve won't force-fit PTFE. There are
places where another material is bet-
ter, and then we'll use it.
Is it fair to say that Gore is focused on
organic growth and Dot on corporate
renewal from acquisitions?
Henn: Yes, we're focused on reinvest-
ing in ourselves; we believe that our
6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Materials Today
renewal and growth will come from
our own R&D efforts. One of the
things that drives our product devel-
opment efforts and our commercial
efforts is a huge v:lIue system around
fitness for use or product integrity.The
product integrity value system is
embedded all the way from converting
the material into a physical form, devel-
oping application technology, and
transferring the nt:cessary technology
and know-how to the customers who
are going to use it. I believe thjs value
system of product integrity and fitness
for use is the biggest legacy that Bob
Gore, Bill's son and the discoverer of
ePTFE, wUI leave the company. \'Ve try
hard to understand the end use of our
product.\'(!e try not to sellmaterial,but
finished products.
One of our biggest successes, of
course, is Gore-Tex® fabric. \'Ve guar-
antee the final garment even though
what we sell is laminate roll goods:
our guarantet: shows our commit·
ment to fitness for use. You're getting
a promise when you buy Gore-Tex
fabric that it will be fit for use. IL will
work. If it doesn't, we take it back.
And we fix whatever's going wrong
in the emire chain. The same value
system is seen throughout the enter-
prise.
Fitness for use drives the develop-
ment of wlut we call core competen-
cy, which is very distinct from core
technology. Each of the Gore divi-
sions - medical, fabrics, electronic
products. and industrial products -
has ended up with a core competen-
cy. The fabric division's core compe-
tency, for instance, is cold weather
physiological comfort; in our elec-
tronic products - Gore started Ollt as
a wire and cable company- our com-
petency now is chip-tO-chip signal
integrity.
What are the chief technology chal-
lenges for Gore in the near future?
l-Ienn:There's an emphasis on creating
new product pl:ltforms that will serve
us for tht:: next ten years. By bUilding
certain capabilities that embody our
core technology, our strJtegic enabling
technologies, our manufacturing capa-
bilities. and our understandings of the
markets into a foundation that can pro-
duce products, we've been very suc-
cessful at derivative product develop-
menL.Il has been very financially lucra-
tive in the short term. But you've also
got to be careful about gelling roo
focused on developing derivative
products, because with them, you're
not creating the future. To build for the
future, you've got to author new prod-
uct platforms for products you GlIl't
even specify rod::l)'. W'e've identified
our new product platforms now, and
\ve're investing very seriously in them.
How do you arrive at a Dew platform?
Henn: \'(fe have 6000 people who
worry about that aU the time, They're
bringing forth all these ideas, and that'S
where we find our gold nuggets. \Vhy
are we leading the world right now in
technology for membrane electrode
assemblies for fuel cells? Because tht:re
was an individual at Gore who
believed that we had the right material
set to galvanize around to create a
product. \Ve now have the highest per-
forming membrant: system for fuel
cells. That didn't come about in a two-
week hiatus. It \vas the result of some-
body synthesizing what he saw hap-
pening in the marketplace, what he
saw happening in the hlfure, and put-
ting it together with our core technol-
ogy.And what we're talking about isn't
just for cars. Houses are online now
with our products, as well as portable
units for places \vhere there aren't
power grids.
Another big challenge is, where are the
white spaces between our divisions
and what are we going to put in there?
\Ve have technology and platforms
that can deliver in those white spaces,
btU we're not there yet, we don't know
yet what the needs are. \'(Ie're wonder-
ing where our fifth and sixth divisions
will come from.
Tbis article is based Oil el11 interview
conducted by PRTM, International
Management Consultancy, UK
(offices in Abingdon and Glasgow)
wbicb first appeared in. lnsigb/ mag-
azine. Tbe interview was conducted
by Insigbt editors Victoria Cooper
and ll-'licbael Leeky at Gore's Elk/Ol1,
MClI:Jllal1c1 offices.