Identifying The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/316177404
Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness
Article in Engineering Studies · April 2017

DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2017.1312419
CITATIONS READS
0 145
4 authors, including:
Kathryn Jablokow Matthew W Ohland

Pennsylvania State University Purdue University
103 PUBLICATIONS 702 CITATIONS 244 PUBLICATIONS 2,416 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Senay Purzer
Purdue University
134 PUBLICATIONS 565 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Expanding Access to and Participation in the Multiple-Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development View project
Creativity MOOC Research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kathryn Jablokow on 31 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Engineering Studies
ISSN: 1937-8629 (Print) 1940-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/test20
Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering

Innovativeness
Daniel M. Ferguson, Kathryn W. Jablokow, Matthew W. Ohland & Şenay

Purzer
To cite this article: Daniel M. Ferguson, Kathryn W. Jablokow, Matthew W. Ohland & Şenay
Purzer (2017): Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness, Engineering Studies,
DOI: 10.1080/19378629.2017.1312419
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1312419
Published online: 17 Apr 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=test20
Download by: [208.38.228.244] Date: 17 April 2017, At: 22:21

ENGINEERING STUDIES, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1312419
Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

Daniel M. Fergusona , Kathryn W. Jablokowb , Matthew W. Ohlanda and Şenay Purzera
a School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA; b School of Graduate
Professional Studies, Pennsylvania State University, Malvern, PA, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The use of science and engineering skills to address the novel chal- Received 25 January 2016
lenges of modern society through innovative solutions is regarded Accepted 15 February 2017
as an essential strategy around the world. Many of the studies KEYWORDS
on innovators, however, are not specific to engineers. To address Engineers; innovation;
this gap, this study explored engineers’ views of innovation and innovators; innovative
the attributes of engineers who create, develop, and implement
innovations through in-depth interviews with expert engineering
innovators. The study was set in an interpretivist framework and
developed a socially constructed description of engineering inno-
vativeness. Forty-five US-based expert engineering innovators were
interviewed; these interviews were coded using a grounded-theory
approach until categorical saturation was achieved. The results
include the identification of 20 characteristics of engineering inno-
vativeness, as well as an ‘engineer’s definition’ of an innovation and
several general descriptors of ‘non-innovative’ engineers. The signif-
icance of this study comes from its use of detailed qualitative data
gathered from peer-recognized innovative engineers from indus-
try, entrepreneurial ventures, and academia to identify and define
characteristics of engineering innovativeness in particular. The iden-
tification of these characteristics has implications for the training
and development of engineers, for engineering team formation and
management, and for programs, policies, and interventions aimed at
supporting innovative behavior by engineers.
Introduction
Educating engineers who are ‘technically competent and innovative’ was the clarion call
made by the National Academy of Engineering in its 2005 report, Educating the Engineer of
2020.1 Engineers make significant contributions to society, leading to innovations across
the spectrum of modern life. In the US, the technological applications of scientific discov-
eries account for nearly half of the nation’s economic growth.2 Hence, the education and
training of engineers to contribute to innovative endeavors is a critical economic strategy.
Yet, even as engineers are expected to act as the translators of new or existing technologies
CONTACT Daniel M. Ferguson [email protected]

1 National Academy of Engineering, Educating the Engineer of 2020, 2005.
2 Castillo, “Minutes of the Directorate for Engineering Advisory Committee Meeting,” 2010; Crawley et al., Rethinking
Engineering Education, 2007; National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, 2004.
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. M. FERGUSON ET AL.
into innovations that benefit society,3 there is limited research on the critical attributes of
innovators in the context of engineering. Much of the extant knowledge about innovators
is based on high profile cases or celebrities, despite the fact that innovation can occur in all
aspects of an engineer’s work, even when he or she is not a celebrity. This study addresses
these gaps in research through an in-depth interview-based study on the characteristics
of engineering innovativeness with engineers who are recognized for their innovative
attributes and accomplishments. Our findings confirm the complexity of the engineering
innovativeness phenomenon and the importance of its continued investigation in both
academic and industrial settings.
Literature review
There is considerable confusion among engineering educators and practitioners, as well
as broadly in society, about the meaning of the word ‘innovation’. Does innovation refer
to what is created or how it is done? Is innovation a process, a product, or an event? Is
it an idea, a capability, or a permanent change?4 Joseph Schumpeter, credited by many
with authoring the first published definition of innovation in 1934, described it as ‘cre-
ative destruction’.5 More recently, Csikszentmihaly noted that to be innovative, a product
or service must be new and provide sustainable benefits in the context in which it is imple-
mented,6 while Amabile defined an innovation as: ‘new, valuable, and realized’.7 Denning
expanded his definition to include the community impacted by the innovation, noting that
‘innovation is the adoption of new practice in a community’.8 Neither Amabile nor Denning
was referring specifically to engineers; still, it seems clear that to be an innovator, you must
deliver ideas that are both new and that benefit the parties or organizations to which they
are successfully applied.9
In engineering, innovativeness has been discussed most often by describing the out-
puts that result from engineering activities (i.e. the ‘what’), such as patents, new products,
and/or increased sales or reduced costs, rather than the knowledge, skills, or attributes
of the engineers who produce those outputs.10 Many professionals – designers, artists,
business people, and engineers – have been identified as innovators; yet, while several
general innovativeness competency models11 and domain-specific competency descrip-
tions exist,12 a consensus definition of the characteristics of an innovative engineer has not
been established.
3 Castillo, “Minutes of the Directorate for Engineering Advisory Committee Meeting,” 2010; Crawley et al., Rethinking Engi-
neering Education, 2007; National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, 2004; Jablokow et al., “Collaborative
Research,” 2012; Ferguson and Ohland, “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” 2012.
4 Ferguson and Ohland, “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” 2012; Scocco, The Definition of Innovation, 2016.
5 Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 1975.
6 Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1996.
7 Amabile, Creativity and Innovation in Organizations, 1996.
8 Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, 2010, p. 434.
9 Amabile, Creativity and Innovation in Organizations, 1996; Floyd, “Innovation, Imagination, and Invention,” 1989, p. 22.
10 Morris, “Innovation Metrics,” 2008; Dyer et al., The Innovator’s DNA, 2011; OECD, The Oslo Manual, 2005; Drucker, Innovation
and Entrepreneurship, 1986.
11 Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, 2010, p. 434; Dyer et al., The Innovator’s DNA, 2011; Kirton, Adaption-
Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, 2003.
12 MacLeod, “The Education of Innovative Engineers,” 2010; Robinson et al., “Design Engineering Competencies,” 2005;
Turley and Bieman, “Competencies of Exceptional and Nonexceptional Software Engineers,” 1995.
ENGINEERING STUDIES 3
General models related to engineering innovativeness

There are several general models related to innovativeness in the literature that informed
our work here. First, the Adaption-Innovation (A-I) cognitive style continuum validated by
Kirton13 describes stable behavioral traits associated with the way all individuals, includ-
ing engineers, approach the solution of problems. Along the A-I continuum, Kirton refers
to individuals as generally ‘more adaptive’ (with a preference for more structure) or ‘more
innovative’ (with a preference for less structure) in their problem-solving. In general, Kir-
ton’s adaptors are characterized as more careful, preferring a more detailed approach to
problems, and being more likely to leverage constraints, whereas Kirton’s innovators are
described as riskier, preferring a more abstract approach to problems, and being more likely
to challenge constraints.14 Kirton’s general population samples included individuals from
across the disciplinary spectrum; his engineering samples displayed normal distributions of
A-I cognitive styles that were very similar to those of the general population.
In a recent popular book, The Innovator’s DNA,15 Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen iden-
tified five major attributes of ‘disruptive innovators’ critical to initiating their innovative
behavior: associating, questioning, observing, networking, and experimenting. The insights
that led to these 5 attributes came from over a decade of work and interviews with nearly
500 ‘disruptive innovators’ and 5000 other business executives; engineers were not specif-
ically featured in this research. Interviewees were selected from four sources (start-up
entrepreneurs, corporate intrapreneurs, product innovators, and process innovators) after
confirmation that the interviewees’ companies had achieved significant increases in market
valuations as a result of introducing innovations. In addition to the five major attributes, The
Innovator’s DNA model also identified discovery and delivery phases within the innovation
life cycle.16
In another recent publication, The Innovators Way: Essential Practices for Successful Inno-
vation,17 Denning and Dunham studied the conversations and commitments of hundreds
of innovators from across the disciplinary spectrum; they also did not specifically investigate
engineers. They proposed eight practices of successful innovators: sensing, envisioning,
offering, adopting, sustaining, executing, leading, and embodying – all of these practices
‘generated in high intensity environments’. According to these authors, the first five prac-
tices relate more to creating and implementing an innovation, and the last three practices
relate more to sustaining innovation practices in an organizational context. These two sets
of practices are analogous to the discovery and delivery phases of innovation identified in
The Innovator’s DNA.18
Another general consideration for our work is the large body of research on
entrepreneurship.19 Some researchers equate entrepreneurial behavior and innovative
13 Kirton, Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, 2003.

15 Dyer et al., The Innovator’s DNA, 2011.
17 Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, 2010, p. 434.
19 Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1986; Ardichvili et al., “A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification
and Development,” 2003; Baron and Tang, “The Role of Entrepreneurs in Firm-Level Innovation,” 2011; Bird, “Toward a
Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency,” 1995; Boyd and Vozikis, “The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the Development
of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions,” 1994; Chung, “Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification Through Bisocia-
tive Mode of Thinking,” 2004; Fontela et al., “The Art of Entrepreneurial Foresight,” 2006; Haynie et al, “A Situated
behavior, just as other researchers equate creative behavior and innovative behavior.20
In our work, we view implementation ability and entrepreneurial ability as identical. As
noted by Ferguson and Ohland: ‘innovative engineers need to be successful entrepreneurs
themselves or partner with entrepreneurs or an organization willing to embrace change to
implement their new, useful or domain-changing products, processes or concepts’.21
Domain-specific models related to engineering innovativeness

A few domain-specific models related to engineering innovativeness do exist, but their
perspectives tend to be narrow and focused on specific types of engineers. For example,
MacLeod22 argued that innovative engineers in his field of construction management are
able to generate creative ideas and convert them into useful outcomes. For MacLeod, the
generation of creative ideas comes from innate and developed talents, including knowl-
edge possessed within a domain, knowledge gathered across domains, practice at using
domain knowledge, and the effort expended acquiring and using relevant knowledge,
where knowledge can be tacit or explicit. Explicit knowledge can be expressed as informa-
tion (e.g. theories, formulas), while tacit knowledge is associative – i.e. implies the ability to
combine bits of within-domain and across-domains knowledge. For MacLeod, acquisition
of explicit knowledge and the possession and use of tacit knowledge form the essence of
an innovative engineer.
In Robinson et al.’s work,23 58 design engineers within a single company ranked 91
possible role- and task-related competencies. In their view, the most important design engi-
neering competencies were: motivation for results; sound judgment; concise communica-
tion; time management; problem solving; technical ability; planning and measuring work;
perseverance; intelligence; ability to learn; textual communication; commercial awareness;
pictorial communication; work/life balance; and innovation. While this list is broad and
diverse, Robinson et al.’s work did not focus specifically on innovative design engineers.
Finally, Turley and Bieman24 looked at the competencies of both ‘exceptional’ and
‘non-exceptional’ software engineers. He identified the top competencies of exceptional
software engineers to be the following: helps others; total years software experience; driven
by bias for action/urgency; total languages used professionally; willingness to confront oth-
ers; exhibits and articulates strong convictions; perseverance; driven by [a] sense of mission;
responds to schedule pressure; and uses prototypes to assess design. While Turley and Bie-
man’s ‘exceptional’ software engineers might be considered ‘innovative’, this connection
is not clearly defined, and some of his top competencies are specific only to the software
engineering field.
Metacognitive Model of the Entrepreneurial Mindset,” 2010; Kinghorn, Characteristics That Lead to Entrepreneurial Recog-
nition, 2005; Mitchelmore and Rowley, “Entrepreneurial Competencies,” 2010; Sarri et al., “Entrepreneur Training for
Creativity and Innovation,” 2010; Tam, How and to What Extent Does Entrepreneurship Education Make Students More
Entrepreneurial?, 2009; Wenhong and Liuying, “The Impact of Entrepreneurial Thinking System on Risk-Taking Propensity
and Entrepreneurial Behavior,” 2010.
20 Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1996.
21 Ferguson and Ohland, “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” 2012.
22 MacLeod, “The Education of Innovative Engineers,” 2010.
23 Robinson et al., “Design Engineering Competencies,” 2005.
24 Turley and Bieman, “Competencies of Exceptional and Nonexceptional Software Engineers,” 1995.
Clarifying our understanding of engineering innovativeness

Despite some progress toward a general understanding of innovativeness and the com-
pletion of a few engineering-specific studies related to innovativeness, our review of the
literature demonstrated that there is no clear agreement on a definition for (or even a
description of) engineering innovativeness25 that applies across the engineering field. A
clamor for more technical and social innovations and an understanding of the innovative
behavior of engineers and others is a global phenomenon,26 but the individual characteris-
tics – i.e. the attitudes, behaviors, attributes, knowledge, and skills – that enable engineers
to produce innovations27 have not been clearly defined. Our identification of the char-
acteristics of engineering innovativeness is a significant contribution to the engineering
community and to society at large, enabling educators, managers, and other leaders to
develop programs that will help nurture these characteristics within engineering students
and practitioners and to create environments that encourage and support these behaviors.
Research methods
In this qualitative study, we examined the phenomenon of engineering innovativeness in
depth by interviewing expert engineering innovators in the ‘naturalistic settings in which
they innovate’.28 The confusion surrounding the central phenomenon of innovativeness
in engineers29 made a qualitative study approach appropriate. Furthermore, the confusion
of conflicting theories surrounding the definitions of innovativeness (engineering or oth-
erwise) made grounded theory – an analysis method with no preconceived assumptions
– an appropriate methodology.30 A grounded-theory approach allowed the results to be
generated inductively from our interviews of experienced, recognized engineering innova-
tors rather than from laboratory experiments or from data gathered from inexperienced or
non-innovative engineers,31 thereby tapping into the lived experiences and perceptions of
our expert sample.
Recruitment and selection of research participants

A purposeful criterion sample of engineering innovator participants32 was identified and
recruited in two stages. In the first stage, we solicited 30 engineering professionals in mul-
tiple disciplines and locations who had collaborative networks of engineering professionals
in industry, entrepreneurial ventures, and/or academia; who were likely to know engi-
neering innovators; and who were willing to act as connectors (à/a Gladwell33 ) to those
innovators. In the second stage, these connectors were asked to nominate study partic-
ipants who were recognized as engineering innovators (‘the most innovative engineer

26 Obama, State of the Union Address to the U.S. Congress, 2011; OECD, New Zealand OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy, 2007;
OECD, Norway OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy, 2008.
27 Ferguson et al., “Engineering Innovativeness,” 2013.
28 Creswell, Educational Research, 2008; Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, 1985.
30 Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 2006.
31 Jablokow et al., Collaborative Research, 2012; Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2002.
32 Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2002.
33 Gladwell, The Tipping Point, 2002.
you have known or with whom you have worked’) and who met at least one of the
following criteria:
• Has a recognized history of or recognition for innovations

• Has published research on innovation attributes or environmental conditions
• Taught courses on innovation or made investments in innovative companies
• Created new products, processes, or patents in an existing or new business
• Has produced innovations in multiple domains
Using this criterion-based ‘snowball’ approach, additional expert engineering innova-

tors were recruited from the professional networks of the engineering connectors and
the engineering innovator interviewees.34 Connectors were encouraged to identify engi-
neering innovators from different engineering disciplines, different types and sizes of
organizations (academic, entrepreneurial, and corporate), and to be inclusive of women
and minorities.
Once nominated, two specific criteria were used in selecting engineering innovators for
participation in this study as interviewees. First, the participant must be an engineer by
training or experience or have served in an engineering capacity. Second, the participant
had been recognized as an engineering innovator by others or had a documented set of
lived experiences working as, or closely with, engineering innovators.
Demographics of research participants

Forty-five US-based engineering innovators were interviewed for this study. Thirty percent
of the interviewees were women or minorities; 60% had significant experience in multi-
ple types of organizations, 40% had academic experience, 90% had corporate experience,
and 45% had entrepreneurial experience. Of these 45 interviewees, 20 were included in
the detailed qualitative analysis process that led to categorical saturation (see the Data
Analysis section). Table 1 summarizes the demographics for this sample of 20 interviewees,
which mirrors the total interviewee sample in terms of gender, race, experience, education,
organizational size, and types of innovation recognition.
Data collection
Semi-structured interviews consisting of a series of open-ended questions that were tested
in a pilot study35 were conducted with the 45 participants (44 face-to-face interviews; one
telephone interview), with an average time of 76 minutes per interview. Participants were
informed about the purpose of the research, and Ferguson and Ohland’s paper,36 which
discusses the current state of confusion and disagreement surrounding the definition of
engineering innovativeness, was shared with each participant prior to their interview.
34 Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2002; Hatch, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, 2002.
35 Jablokow et al., Collaborative Research, 2012; Creswell, Educational Research, 2008; Patton, Qualitative Research and
Evaluation Methods, 2002.
Table 1. Engineering innovator qualitative analysis sample.

Years of Type(s) of
Type(s) of Size of Gender innovation Formal Education innovation
Pseudonym experience current org. (* = Minority) experience education level recognition
Aubrey C L F 30–40 Bio Eng PhD P, I, IR
Bruno C, A L M 40–50 Mat Eng PhD P, I, IR
Carol C, E S F 30–40 ChemE BS I, IR
Dana C, A, E S F 30–40 ChemE Bio, Bus BS I, IR
David C, E L M 30–40 ME BS I, IR
Doris C L F 20–30 AnChem PhD I, IR
Edward C, A M M 20–30 Aero Eng PhD I, IR
Greg C, A M M* 30–40 ECE PhD P, I, IR
Ian C, A, E M M* 30–40 ECE PhD P, I, IR
James A, E M M 30–40 ChemE PhD P, I, IR
Joseph C, A, E S M 20–30 MD MS P, I, IR
Nathan C M M 30–40 ME BS I, IR
Peter C M M 30–40 Arch Eng BS P, I, IR
Pierre C L M 40–50 ME BS P, I, IR
Richard C,A S M 40–50 ME PhD P, I, IR
Riley C, E S M 30–40 Comp Sc BS I, IR
Ryan A, E S M 20–30 ME PhD I, IR
Tarik C, E S M 40–50 High School I, IR
Ted C L M 30–40 Chem, ChemE BS MBA P, I, IR
Toni C L M 30–40 ME BS P, IR
Notes: Experience: C = Corporate; A = Academic; E = Entrepreneurial; Size of Current Organization: S ≤ 1000 employ-
ees; M = 1001–10,000 employees; L ≥ 10,000 employees; Innovation Recognition: P = listed on more than 5
Patents; I = Innovation Awards; IR = Innovation Responsibility; Formal Education: Aero Eng = Aerospace Engi-
neering; AnChem = Analytical Chemistry; Arch Eng = Architectural Engineering; Bio Eng = Biological Engineering;
Bus = Business; Chem = Chemistry; ChemE = Chemical Engineering; Comp Sc = Computer Science; ECE = Electrical
and Computer Engineering; Mat Eng = Materials Engineering; MD = Medical Doctor; ME = Mechanical Engineering.
The full interview protocol is provided in Appendix 1. Sections 1–7 of that protocol were
covered in all 45 interviews; additional sections of the protocol were covered as time per-
mitted. Data collected from Sections 2 and 4–7 of the protocol provided the data for the
exploratory qualitative analysis process; these sections focus on the definition of an inno-
vation and on the engineering innovator characteristics associated with the beginning,
continuation, and completion of an innovation process. All interviews were transcribed
and shared with interviewees for possible corrections; no corrections or redactions were
received.
Data coding and analysis

In setting up this research, we focused on rigorous approaches to participant recruitment
and selection, as well as data collection, coding, analysis, and interpretation. We recognize
that care must always be taken when dealing with interviewees’ perceptions of and reports
on behavior (their own or that of others) and that interview evidence can be interpreted in
different ways. Analysis of the interview data began with bi-weekly reviews of the interview
results and constant comparisons of new and previous analysis results by the research team
and two external qualitative analysts. Consistent with a grounded theory approach,37 in
which researchers construct meaning from collected data (participants’ interviews, in this
37 Hatch, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, 2002.

case) without reference to existing theory, these reviews began simultaneously with data
collection.
Open coding of the interviews was used to construct a code book with in vivo code defi-
nitions (i.e. verbatim definitions using the words of the interviewees) of major engineering
innovativeness constructs contained in the interview transcripts.38 Code book construction
began with the selection of three interviewees (Ted, Carol, and Ian – see Table 1), who were
chosen based on their diversity of gender, race, experience, and educational background.
The equally weighted criteria for interview selection for coding were:
• Varied backgrounds of innovation experiences

• Early, middle, and late participation in the data collection process
• Different engineering training and backgrounds
• Diversity in demographics (gender, race)
• Interviewer’s judgment of the richness of the interview
For the first three interviews analyzed, all significant words or phrases were coded into
291 in vivo codes (i.e. using actual words of the interviewees) after multiple coding passes
through the combined 205 minutes of transcripts. Interestingly, the interviewees identified
the characteristics of non-innovative engineers or the ‘negative case’ of engineering inno-
vativeness39 without prompting by the interviewer. We concluded that additional sampling
was not needed to address this case,40 as 19 of the 20 study participants who were analyzed
described their lived experiences with non-innovative engineers in one or more interview
protocol sections while describing innovative engineers.41 An additional 56 in vivo codes
were added after coding for all instances of the description of non-innovative engineers,
for a total of 347 in vivo codes.
The 347 in vivo codes were grouped using a 22-part schema that identified where the
data were positioned in each interview. Eighty-two of the in vivo codes were combined
into new codes using a dictionary42 for assistance. This process resulted in a net total of
265 in vivo codes linked to 874 in vivo words or phrases located in the three interview
transcripts (Ted, Carol, and Ian). Next, we defined 16 initial categories (CAs) of codes as
the starting point for testing our coding process. Table 2 shows an example of the cre-
ation of category CA-adaptable-flexible, including the in vivo codes initially assigned to it,
each with a transcript prefix location identifier (e.g. HI = protocol segment-Hello to Individ-
ual, ID1 = protocol segment-IDentify characteristics first questions, OS = Overall protocol
segment asking about overall characteristics), the actual word or phrase used by the inter-
viewee, and the number of times that word or phrase appeared in each of the three initial
interviews.
With the 16 initial coding categories in hand, 12 transcript excerpts of 100–400 words
were selected from six other interviews for testing by our two external qualitative analysts.
The 12 excerpts were coded independently by the two analysts, followed by discussion,
38 MacQueen et al., “Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis,” 1998.

39 Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 2006.
42 Oxford University Press, Pocket Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus, 2010.
Table 2. Example of category creation (CA-adaptable-flexible) using in vivo codes.

Number of quotes
In vivo codes included in CA-adaptable-flexible Ted Ian Carol Total
HI – adaptability 0 3 0 3
ID1 – able to adapt 3 5 0 8
ID1 – flexible 0 0 10 10
ID3 – able to deal with constraints 0 0 1 1
ID3 – adaptable 2 0 0 2
ID3 – adaptable, risk mitigation 2 0 0 2
ID3 – flexible, makes path corrections 2 0 1 3
MI – flexible, changes based on new data 0 0 2 2
OS – flexible 0 0 1 1
Total 9 8 15 32
Table 3. In vivo coding categories in the transcripts of Ted, Carol and Ian.
Interviewee/ Starting an Developing an Completing an Overall
protocol innovation innovation innovation innovativeness
section (Section 4) (Section 5) (Section 6) (Section 7)
Ted Adapter, Asks Ques- Adapter, Challenger, Adapter, Creative,
tions, Challenger, Communicator, Empathetic,
Empathetic, Experi- Marketer, NoRules Implementer,
menter, Independent, Independent,
Knowledge- Problem-Solver
Accumulator,
Knowledge-Integrator,
Networker, OKtoFail,
Seeks Alternatives,
Visionary
Carol Adapter, Alternatives Adapter, Alternatives Implementer Adapter, Challenger,
Seeker, Creative, Seeker, Empathetic, Handles-Ambiguity,
Experimenter, Handles Knowledge- Knowledge-
Ambiguity, Knowledge- Accumulator, Accumulator,
Integrator, Networker, Marketer, Networker, Knowledge-
OKtoFail, Passionate, OKtoFail Integrator,
Perseveres Also: Not-Alternatives Learning-Focused,
Also: Not-Empathetic, Seeker Marketer, Networker,
Not-Marketer Passionate,
Perseveres, Visionary
Ian Adapter, Challenger, Alternatives-Seeker, Alternatives-Seeker, Communicator,
Experimenter, Communicator, Implementer, Leader Competitor,
Knowledge- Implementer, Intelligent,
Accumulator, NoRules, Perseveres Knowledge-
OKtoFail, Visionary Accumulator,
Learning-Focused,
OKtoFail, Perseveres
with 90% agreement between the coders on category assignments and in vivo-based cat-
egory definitions before and 100% agreement after their discussions.43 As a result of these
coding comparisons, we expanded the initial 16 categories to 26 categories and re-coded
the first three interviews to identify all transcript instances of these 26 categories.
Table 3 shows the results of this re-coding process with the in vivo coding categories (in
alphabetical order) found in the transcripts of Ted, Carol, and Ian, with respect to specific
43 MacQueen et al., “Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis,” 1998.

Table 4. Examples of in vivo data for the alternatives seeker coding category.
Alternatives seeker Definition: Seeks alternatives, thinks/looks beyond what they know
In vivo quotes: ‘Imagines solutions, open minded, see(s) possibilities.’
‘Innovators in my mind have this sense that there’s got to be a way to solve this, there’s got to be a
better way and I’m going to persist until I find a number of ways.’
‘So we had this team that functioned about two years, kicking around ideas, running tests, coming
up with new ideas.’
‘For me it was always kind of trying things, and then address the weaknesses.’
‘So you’ve got to be saying, Okay, if we go in and it doesn’t run on the machine, if this happens, then
what do we do?, What are our alternatives?’
‘I think an engineer feels that way about a problem solution but he/she knows that there are more
than one solution to a given problem.’
‘I’m always looking for some different or better way to do things.’
‘You have to be open to looking at things in non-traditional ways, they call this out-of-box thinking.’
‘It’s just keeping on, keep beating on the door, going around the problem and thinking of it again
and again, and then it just comes to you.’
‘Someone that can think beyond the problem to potential possibilities outside the realm of
capabilities that they have.’
sections of the interview protocol. Ted’s transcript has no entries for Section 7 of the proto-
col (‘overall innovativeness’), as that section was not covered in his interview; Carol’s inter-
view includes categories associated with ‘non-innovative’ engineers (i.e. Not-Empathetic,
Not-Marketer, and Not-Alternatives Seeker). Consistent with a social constructionist theo-
retical position,44 the categories covered by each interviewee in Table 3 are not identical.
This is not surprising, as based on other assessments of individual differences, we expect
to find a diversity of category profiles among engineering innovators, rather than a single
common set of characteristics.45
Once Ted’s, Carol’s, and Ian’s interviews were recoded, six additional interviews were
chosen and coded using the 26 categories identified thus far. A result of this new coding
was the identification of 20 additional coding categories, bringing the total number of cat-
egories to 46. As each new category was identified, all previously coded transcripts were
completely recoded to identify any instances of the new category. This coding and recod-
ing process required a constant comparison of new participant data to previously coded in
vivo category definitions to determine whether the new participant data could be incorpo-
rated into an existing coding category or required the definition of a distinct new category.
An example of in vivo words and phrases combined by the research team during this cod-
ing and recoding process to define the final version of the Alternatives Seeker category is
shown in Table 4.
As each additional interview was coded and recoded, a prevalence map was created to
determine whether categorical saturation had been reached. Prevalence was defined as the
number of participants who cited a coding category in their descriptions of an engineer-
ing innovator, while categorical saturation was defined as the lack of emergence of a new
category.46 Prevalence counts do not represent a quantitative weighting of the data, nor
44 Crabtree and Miller, “A Template Approach to Text Analysis,” 1992.

45 Jablokow et al., Collaborative Research, 2012; Kirton, Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, 2003.
46 Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry, 1985; Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 2002; Greenhalgh and
Taylor, “How to Read a Paper,” 1997.
Table 5. Example of coding category redefinition process (developer).

Coding label Acronym In vivo definition # Participants quoting # Quotes
CA-ADPT adaptable- ADPT Changes based on new data, makes path 9 17
flexible corrections, accepts new ideas
CA-DEVLPR develops DEVLPR Develops idea, prototypes, finds what works, 15 43
ideas, prototypes, what does not, learns from failures
tests idea
NEW CA-DEVLPR DEVLPR Changes based on new data, makes path 17 60
develops ideas, corrections, accepts new ideas develops
prototypes, tests idea, prototypes, finds what works, what
idea does not, learns from failures
does prevalence indicate that one category is more important than another. Our categor-
ical saturation heuristic was used only to determine whether further coding of interviews
was needed to reveal additional categories.
Categorical saturation was achieved when the 15th interview was coded. Even though
new category emergence ended at 15 interviews, 5 additional interviews were selected
and coded to confirm saturation; no additional coding categories were found in these 5
interviews. After coding of the 20 interviews was complete, the research team compared
categories less frequently mentioned with more prevalent categories and examined cat-
egories that appeared to have overlapping in vivo definitions. As a result of this process,
26 of the 46 categories were absorbed into new and redefined categories, resulting in 20
categories overall. Table 5 shows an example of this category absorption/redefinition pro-
cess for the Developer and Adaptable-Flexible categories, which were merged into a new
Developer category; note that the number of in vivo quotes in Table 5 is additive, while the
number of participants quoting is not.
Final definitions of all 20 coding categories using basic in vivo quotes are shown in Table 6
in alphabetical order, along with the respective number of quotes that appeared across the
20 coded interviews for each category and the number of participants who mentioned each
category. In the following section, we discuss these 20 coding categories in more detail,
with additional quotes from the interviews to add depth to their descriptions.
Results
The principal findings of this study, co-constructed with the interviewees and grounded
in their experiences and perceptions, include a representative ‘engineer’s definition’ of
an innovation, descriptions of 20 engineering innovator characteristics, and a general
description of the ‘non-innovative engineer’.
Definition of an innovation for an engineer

As perceived by our sample, the engineer’s definition of an innovation is something new or
novel, which has value and is used, adopted, or accepted in the marketplace. Supporting this
view, Richard remarked:
In my mind, [an] innovation is recognizing a need, or a gap, or a circumstance that could be
better and then bringing to bear new ways of putting things together, [things] that usually
exist, to be able to [sustainably] meet that need, or that gap.
Table 6. Coding category names, definitions, and numbers of quotes and participants.
#Participants (of 20)
Coding #In vivo quotes who mentioned the Basic coding category definition
category name per category category using brief in vivo data
Active Learner/Curious 132 19 ‘Asks questions/curious’.
Alternatives Seeker 67 18 ‘Seeks alternatives, thinks/looks beyond what they
know’.
Analytical 70 16 ‘Meticulous and careful examination of the problem’.
Challenger 89 18 ‘Willing to do things differently, challenger of status
quo’.
Communications Skilled 75 18 ‘Extroverted, sells ideas’.
Creative 60 16 ‘Invents something new, brings into existence’.
Deep Knowledge 117 20 ‘Has depth and breadth of knowledge and
experience’.
Developer/Adapter 73 17 ‘Develops idea, prototypes, finds what works, what
doesn’t’.
Experimenter 57 18 ‘Doer, ready to try something, makes abstract
concrete’.
Implementer 60 17 ‘Gets tasks done, reliable, detail oriented’.
Knowledge Integrator 66 18 ‘Lateral, non-linear thinker, associative thinker’.
Market/Business savvy 57 16 ‘Understands customers/markets’.
Networker/Team player 118 18 ‘Has a network of collaborators’.
Passionate 44 17 ‘Passionate, excited’.
Persistent 57 16 ‘Committed, determined, resilient’.
Risk Taker 83 19 ‘Accepts risk, willing to take risks, not afraid to fail’.
Self-Reliant 93 16 ‘Confident, individualistic, self-motivated’.
Team Manager/Leader 106 19 ‘Create(s) a shared direction that other people adopt
and work together to make it happen’.
User-Focused 59 12 ‘Empathetic, aware of a customer need’.
Vision/Caring 120 19 ‘Thinks longer term, wants to make a contribution’.
Likewise, our interviewees also emphasized that just having an idea, or simply ‘being cre-
ative’, is not comparable to implementing an innovation. They all stated emphatically that
implementation of a new idea, process, or product is required for something to be called
an innovation, avoiding some of the common misuses of the term.47 As Riley noted when
asked to define an innovation: ‘Ideas are a dime a dozen. I’ve got an idea. I just had a great
idea out there. So? Act on it. Turn it into something real; get it out in the world.’ Clearly,
our interviewees saw innovations existing at the intersection of novelty, usefulness, and
implementation, confirming the definitions derived from the literature by Ferguson and
Ohland48 and others.49
The 20 characteristics of engineering innovativeness

The variety found in the descriptions of engineering innovators provided by our expert
sample confirms the need for a socially constructed understanding of this phenomenon;50
such complex evidence can lead to multiple interpretations, making the consistency and
rigor of our coding and analysis important. The quotations were synthesized via the pro-
cess described earlier into the 20 key characteristics (coding categories) shown in Table 6.

49 Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, 1996; Amabile, Creativity and Innovation
in Organizations, 1996.
Here, we present the final co-constructed description of each characteristic of engineering

innovativeness in alphabetical order for ease of reference. Implicit in our process (and in
these descriptions) is the assumption that two specific engineering innovators may exhibit
different combinations of these characteristics, and each to different degrees; a fuller under-
standing of different engineering innovator ‘archetypes’ (combinations of characteristics)
will be explored in future work. The first five characteristics are presented in greater detail
to show how interview data gathered directly from the participants were used as evidence
to create and support the definitions. The remaining 15 characteristics are described more
briefly, with selected quotations for all 20 characteristics shown in Appendix 2.
(1) Active Learner/Curious: An engineering innovator who is an Active Learner/Curious

asks many questions and is naturally curious and eager to keep learning. This active
love of learning leads them to ask: ‘Why couldn’t this be done better?’ and to seize
upon opportunities to learn from others. As Doris noted in her interview: ‘All the people
I know who are really good [engineering] innovators are inquisitive, constantly seeking
new ways to do it better.’ According to our sample, this inquisitiveness and the desire
to improve themselves and their results are hallmarks of the Active Learner/Curious
engineering innovator. As Richard added: ‘They feel they can learn and get better at it.
They have this sense that I’m not as good as I’d like to be; I haven’t made it yet; I can
get better at it; I can learn to be better.’
(2) Alternatives Seeker: An engineering innovator who is an Alternatives Seeker looks
beyond what they know, searching for a better way of executing a process, designing,
or making a product. Alternatives Seekers are flexible and keep changing their search
activities or search strategies as they obtain new information. As Richard remarked:
‘They’re willing to search internally. They’re willing to search externally. They seek infor-
mation from others. They review patents. They benchmark. They’ll go to a hardware
store. They’ll go look for ideas from others. They’re not ashamed to identify ways [that]
might be adapted from what’s already existing in another setting.’ Ryan compared an
Alternatives Seeker to a football player: ‘They reconfigure. They have a basic idea of
where they want to go, a basic plan. It took them two seconds to [do] that. But, some-
thing happens, and they spin and reconfigure, and go [a different way].’ According
to our experts, these engineering innovators seek multiple options as they search for
information, ideas, and ways to get things done.
(3) Analytical: An Analytical engineering innovator is meticulous and carefully exam-
ines both the problem and potential solutions. Their problem-solving processes are
methodical and deliberate; they collect data and make data-driven decisions. In
describing his own innovativeness, Edward noted: ‘I solve problems using the engi-
neering way. Analyzing the situation, collecting data, analyzing the data, design[ing]
solutions, execut[ing] them.’ Similarly, Doris linked her innovativeness with the Six
Sigma process51 and its analytical value, saying: ‘The benefit of Six Sigma is if you have
the data, no matter who you are, you can make things change. [What] I loved about Six
Sigma [was] the fact that no matter where you were in the organization, you could show
data that said, “Everyone should be turning the lights off at 6:00 o’clock, and here’s why,
51 Pyzdek and Keller, The Six Sigma Handbook, 2014.

and here’s how much money it will save.”’ According to our experts, an Analytical engi-
neering innovator designs and implements solutions based on careful consideration of
the appropriate data.
(4) Challenger: Engineering innovators who are Challengers are willing to do things dif-
ferently and question the status quo. They challenge the way things work, which often
makes things uncomfortable for those who like rules and orderly, stable processes. Ian
described this characteristic as follows: ‘This [is] a person who when you say, “Do A,”
they say, “Why? Why should I do A? Why is that so important?” I mean, they’ll push on
everything. And, “Isn’t somebody else doing A? Or, they’re doing B, why don’t I help
them.” And, they like to deviate from the norm.’ Similarly, Joseph noted: ‘They’re peo-
ple that are always unsatisfied with the way things are. Oftentimes, you find people
who are really innovative are people that are more inclined to ask for forgiveness than
permission.’ Our expert sample identified this tendency to ‘push the boundaries’ as an
important trait of engineering innovators.
(5) Communications Skilled: Engineering innovators who are Communications Skilled
know how to describe, explain, and sell ideas. Their communication skills are the glue
that connects an innovation to the external support and resources needed to move it
forward. Richard defined it this way: ‘They’ve got to rally other people around them and
the idea, and sell the idea. Document the idea in a way that enables the usefulness of
it, the value of it to be seen by others. And sell the idea to those that have resources
that would enable them to take it to the next step further.’ Doris described the com-
munication skills of engineering innovators as a form of storytelling: ‘I think [they are]
people that are able to flesh it out, make it come to life, storytellers. Storytelling is
very important. People who can bring what they saw in the field to life for someone
[are innovators]. That’s critical if you want to advocate for your idea; if you want to
bring people along with you.’ Whether viewed as persuasive or a good storyteller, these
engineering innovators communicate well.
The remaining 15 characteristics of engineering innovativeness are presented with basic

definitions only; a selection of supporting quotations for all 20 characteristics are provided
in Appendix 2.
(6) Creative: A Creative engineering innovator is inspired in the moment, or even after
long periods of study, to imagine, invent, or bring something new to life.
(7) Deep Knowledge: An engineering innovator with Deep Knowledge soaks up all the
knowledge (both tacit and explicit) and information they can. They know a broad base
of subjects deeply enough to provide meaningful contributions to problem solving
and willingly share their knowledge with others.
(8) Developer/Adapter: Engineering innovators who are Developers/Adapters continu-
ally change their understanding of an innovation as they receive new feedback from
testing, research, potential customers, collaborators, suppliers, and/or the market-
place.
(9) Experimenter: An Experimenter engineering innovator accepts uncertainty and
ambiguity, and qualifies possibilities through testing, modeling, and/or building pro-
totypes.
(10) Implementer: An Implementer engineering innovator uses domain knowledge and

organizational skills to manage constraints, make a detailed plan, gather necessary
resources, overcome obstacles, and manage continuous changes in plans so that their
innovation goal is reached.
(11) Knowledge Integrator: Engineering innovators who are Knowledge Integrators con-
nect information from a wide range of sources to inform their thinking about how a
product or process is designed or built; they associate ‘bits and pieces’ of apparently
unrelated information to construct solutions.
(12) Market/Business Savvy: Engineering innovators who are Market/Business Savvy are
cognizant of the role of finance, economics, marketing, sales, the supply chain, and
the market in the innovation process.
(13) Networker/Team Player: Engineering innovators who are Networkers/Team Players
know that they do not have all the knowledge and skills required to solve a problem
or address a user need, so they choose to collaborate with other people in order to
innovate.
(14) Passionate: Engineering innovators who are Passionate get excited about their work
and the results they can achieve through implementation of their innovations, sharing
their excitement to elicit support for the development of the project and help move
it forward.
(15) Persistent: A Persistent engineering innovator is committed, determined, resilient,
and not easily thwarted. They have a faith-like conviction that they can find a way to
solve a problem or determine how their idea is worthwhile.
(16) Risk Taker: A Risk Taker engineering innovator is willing to take chances and fail.
These engineering innovators welcome all feedback as a way to accelerate learning.
(17) Self-Reliant: A Self-Reliant engineering innovator is confident, individualistic, self-
motivated, and takes ownership of the problem or opportunity.
(18) Team Manager/Leader: An engineering innovator who is a Team Manager/Leader
facilitates and drives the innovation process by working with and through a team of
people.
(19) User-Focused: A User-Focused engineering innovator makes customer needs a pri-
ority. They look for the needs of the user in the context of environment in which the
user lives and works.
(20) Visionary/Caring: Engineering innovators who are Visionary/Caring have a vision of
what they want to accomplish and are driven to achieve this vision.
The characteristics of non-innovative engineers

The interview protocol shown in Appendix 1 does not include explicit questions about
non-innovative engineers; nevertheless, our participants offered many descriptions of non-
innovative engineer characteristics52 without being prompted. Specifically, non-innovative
engineers were described as engineers who will not challenge the status quo and who do
not value collaboration.53 As Aubrey remarked: ‘I can describe people that don’t [innovate].
They tend to stay within the system, and stay within the rules. They stick to their objectives

53 Ferguson et al., “The Traditional Engineer vs. the Innovative Engineer,” 2014.
and to an extent that they oftentimes can’t achieve their objectives because they’re not
networking.’ Likewise, non-innovative engineers were characterized as thinking short term
rather than long term and always minimizing risk, as illustrated by Toni’s comments: ‘In my
perspective, there [are] a lot of people that are just looking for established solutions. They
just want to execute what has been proven to work before.’
These descriptions, and the fact that our interviewees described those who are innova-
tive using different combinations of traits, raise interesting questions about whether the
lack of certain qualities might be offset or compensated for by specific others. While we
have not yet analyzed the interviews with these questions in mind, we can hypothesize
about how such ‘compensation’ might work. For example, the lack of deep knowledge
might be offset by an individual’s networking skills (calling in others to serve as experts)
and persistence. Or a higher level of self-reliance might compensate for someone who lacks
skills in being a team manager. Answering these questions will require further research to
determine whether seemingly similar characteristics (or combinations of characteristics) are
collapsible or truly independent (without the possibility of replacing each other). In future
work, we will collect data from larger samples of recognized engineering innovators and
explore the interrelationships among the 20 attributes identified here to address these and
other complex questions.
Discussion
Characteristics of engineering innovativeness: what they are or what they do?
A key question that might be raised about our work is whether the 20 characteristics of
engineering innovativeness are innate features of individuals (i.e. ‘who engineering inno-
vators are’) or learned engineering practices (i.e. ‘what engineering innovators do’) – or
possibly a combination of both. In previous research, Menold et al.54 categorized the 20
engineering innovativeness characteristics in terms of their underlying constructs as innate,
learned, or a blend of the two. The majority of the characteristics (8 of 20–40%) were identi-
fied as learned (Analytical, Communications Skilled, Deep Knowledge, Developer/Adapter,
Experimenter, Implementer, Market/Business Savvy, and Networker/Team Player); 30% (6
of 20) were identified as innate (Active Learner/Curious, Challenger, Passionate, Persistent,
Risk Taker, and Self-Reliant); and 30% (6 of 20) were identified as a blend of both (Alter-
natives Seeker, Creative, Knowledge Integrator, Team Manager/Leader, User-Focused, and
Vision/Caring).55 Validation of this proposed classification scheme through empirical stud-
ies will be part of our future work. In the meantime, by recognizing that the engineering
innovativeness characteristics identified by our expert sample may be indicative of per-
sonal features, engineering practices, or both, we acknowledge the situated interaction of
engineering innovators with the problem in context and the complexity of engineering
innovativeness as a phenomenon.
The results of Menold et al.’s study56 bode well for engineering educators, corporate
managers, and trainers in terms of developing programs, curricula, and activities that will
encourage greater levels of engineering innovativeness in their students and employees in
54 Menold et al., “The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness,” 2016.

terms of the characteristics with a learned component (e.g. Communications Skilled, Deep
Knowledge, Experimenter, Creative, User-Focused). The fraction of engineering innovative-
ness characteristics that we believe to be purely innate is not insignificant, however (at
30%). Fortunately, we know that humans are capable of and frequently use learned cop-
ing behaviors to simulate traits and characteristics they do not naturally possess, enabling
them to manage gaps between what they do most naturally and what a particular situation
requires or others expect.57 While these coping behaviors come at a higher cognitive cost
and require extra motivation to ‘switch them on’, they are nevertheless a critical compo-
nent of engineering innovation and can be encouraged, enabled, and taught. While we do
not expect an individual’s innate innovativeness characteristics (i.e. Active Learner/Curious,
Challenger, Passionate, Persistent, Risk Taker, and Self-Reliant) to change permanently,
that person can learn coping strategies that will allow them to behave differently when
necessary.58
In another recent study, we noted distinct groupings of the 20 characteristics discussed
by every engineering innovator we interviewed; full details are provided in Ferguson et al.59
This observation led us to hypothesize that there may be multiple (even many) archetypes
or personas of engineering innovators, any of which may be successful in different situa-
tions and contexts. The relationship between the findings of this ‘persona’ study and the
actual practices of engineering educators and practitioners will be pursued in future work.
Engineering innovativeness and other innovator models

In interpreting our results and validating them against related literature, we note some
interesting similarities and differences between our findings and the published research
of Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen in The Innovator’s DNA.60 As noted earlier, Dyer, et al.
identified five innovator discovery skills: associational thinking (synthesizing and connect-
ing fields that others find unrelated), questioning (showing a passion for inquiry), observing
(carefully watching the world around them), networking (finding and testing ideas through
a diverse network of individuals), and experimenting (constantly trying out new experi-
ences and piloting new ideas). In addition, two general behaviors are assumed to initiate
or encourage the use of these five discovery skills, namely: risk taking and challenging
the status quo. Finally, Dyer et al. also described four delivery skills required for realiz-
ing an innovation: analyzing, planning, detail-oriented implementing, and self-disciplined
executing.
Our new model of engineering innovativeness encompasses all of the skills described
by Dyer et al., as shown in our general mapping between the two sets of descriptors in
Table 7. Our new model also provides greater fidelity in defining engineering innovative-
ness in particular, while Dyer et al.’s research did not segregate findings between engineers
and non-engineers. While mappings between model constructions are imprecise at best, it
appears that nine of our new engineering innovativeness characteristics are not explicitly
addressed in the Innovator’s DNA model (see the second column of Table 7): Communi-
cations Skilled, Creative, Deep Knowledge, Developer, Market/Business Savvy, Passionate,

59 Ferguson et al., “The Diverse Personas of Engineering Innovators,” 2017.
Table 7. Mapping of Innovator’s DNA skills to engineering innovator characteristics.

Dyer et al.’s discovery and
delivery skillsa 20 Engineering innovator characteristics
Analyzing Analytical: ‘Meticulous and careful examination of the problem’
Associational thinking Knowledge Integrator: ‘Lateral, non-linear thinker, associative thinker’
Challenging the status quo Challenger: ‘Willing to do things differently, challenger of status quo’
Experimenting Alternatives Seeker: ‘Seeks alternatives, thinks/looks beyond what they know’
Experimenter: ‘Doer, ready to try something, makes abstract concrete’
Networking Networker/Team Player: ‘Has a network of collaborators’
Observing User Focused: ‘Empathetic, aware of a customer need, focus on the customer’
Planning; Detail-Oriented Implementer: ‘Gets tasks done, reliable, detail oriented’
Implementing
Questioning Active Learner/Curious: ‘Asks questions/curious – with a love of learning’
Self-Disciplined Executing Self-Reliant: ‘Confident, individualistic, self-motivated’
Taking Risks Risk Taker: ‘Accepts risk, willing to take risks, not afraid to fail’
(No corresponding skill) Communications Skilled: ‘Extroverted, sells ideas’
Creative: ‘Invents something new, brings into existence’
Deep Knowledge: ‘Has depth and breadth of knowledge and experience’
Developer/Adapter: ‘Develops idea, prototypes, finds what works, what doesn’t’
Market/ Business Savvy: ‘Understands customers/ markets’
Team Manager/ Leader: ‘Create(s) a shared direction that other people adopt and work
together to make it happen’
Vision/Caring: ‘Thinks longer term, wants to make a contribution’
Passionate: ‘Passionate, excited’
Persistent: ‘Committed, determined, resilient’
a Dyer et al., The Innovator’s DNA, 2011.
Persistent, Team Manager/Leader, and Vision/Caring. In particular, one characteristic often

discussed by our interviewees (Deep Knowledge) is mentioned only in a footnote in Dyer’s
work. Competence in and/or knowledge of one’s field is a key measure of an engineer’s
abilities,61 and this variation in the models may signal a distinct difference between the
disruptive entrepreneurs/innovators studied by Dyer et al. and the expert engineering
innovators we interviewed in our study.
Next, in The Innovator’s Way,62 Denning and Dunham presented a generative model of
nine innovation practices (based in part on Rogers’ diffusion models63 ): observing, sensing,
envisioning, offering, adopting, sustaining, executing, leading, and embodying.64 These
innovative practices are compared to our 20 engineering innovativeness characteristics in
Table 8, where Denning’s and Dunham’s practices appear to be blended combinations of
several engineering innovativeness characteristics in each case. Similar to the comparison
between our work and Dyer et al.’s, we did not find clear parallels between seven of our
engineering innovativeness characteristics and Denning and Dunham’s practices, namely:
Analytical, Creative, Deep Knowledge, Experimenting, Knowledge Integrator, Risk Taker,
and Self-Reliant. Once again, Deep Knowledge is absent from the Innovator’s Way model.
The mapping comparisons of Dyer et al.’s innovator skills and Denning and Dunham’s
innovator practices to our new engineering innovativeness characteristics show that engi-
neering innovators may be similar in some ways to ‘general’ innovators, but there are also
some distinct differences. Six of the newly defined engineering innovativeness character-
istics show up in both Dyer et al.’s and Denning and Dunham’s model, namely: Active
61 ABET Inc., 2010–2011 Criteria for Accrediting Applied Science Programs, 2009.
62 Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, 2010.
63 Rogers, “A Prospective and Retrospective Look at the Diffusion Model,” 2004; Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1962.
64 Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, 2010.
Table 8. Mapping of The Innovator’s Way practices to engineering innovator characteristics.

The Innovator’s Way innovation practices 20 Engineering innovator characteristics
Observing: notice, be aware, attending, assessing Active Learner/Curious, User Focused
Sensing: source checking, learning with inquiry, speculating, Active Learner/Curious, User Focused, Alternatives
sensing Seeker
Envisioning: a practice of written or oral storytelling, use life Communications Skilled, Passionate
struggles, engage listener
Offering: making an offer, responding to listener, setting path Communications Skilled, Team Manager/Leader
to outcome
Adopting: understand needs of and listen to network, deal Communications Skilled, Networker/Team Player,
with resistance, recruit supporters Persistent, Team Manager/Leader User Focused
Sustaining: integrate and enable the new practice in the Developer, Implementer, Market/Business Savvy,
community, maintain and support the value of the practice, Persistent
deal with resistance
Executing: managing conversations on action, goals, trust, Team Manager/Leader, Implementer, Communications
satisfaction Skilled
Leading: engage others, inspire others, produce value Implementer Passionate, Team Manager/Leader,
Vision/Caring
Embodying: manage listening, reflecting and changing to Challenger, Market/Business Savvy Team
embody the new practice in the community Manager/Leader
Learner/Curious, Alternatives Seeker, Challenger, Implementer, Networker/Team Player,

and User Focused; these represent the ‘common ground’ in the three models’ represen-
tations of innovators. The Creative and Deep Knowledge characteristics of the engineering
innovativeness model are missing from both general innovator models, however; this raises
interesting questions about the role of knowledge and experience in the creation, develop-
ment, and implementation of engineering innovations as compared to innovations based
in other disciplinary domains, as well as perceptions about the role of creativity in the
innovation process. The remaining differences between the models may be linked to the
particular samples under study in each case (in comparison to engineering innovators).
The non-innovative engineer

As noted in the Results section, non-innovative engineers were described by our intervie-
wees as engineers who minimize risk, think short term, are not persistent, focus on a narrow
domain of knowledge expertise, do not challenge the status quo, and who are not net-
workers or collaborators. They were also identified as the source of many of the barriers
engineering innovators have to overcome in developing their own innovations. In related
work on non-innovators, Dougherty et al.’s study of 117 new product development staff
in 17 innovative and non-innovative companies found that ‘non-innovative organizations
limit new knowledge to that which improves existing operations; [or] confirms or ratifies
current operations’.65 Dyer et al. also commented on non-innovative behaviors, finding
non-innovators weaker in all five of their discovery skills.66 Other research studies have
examined the absence of competencies or design skills of specific types of engineers with
findings comparable to our descriptions of the non-innovative engineer.67
65 Dougherty et al., “Systems of Organizational Sensemaking for Sustained Product Innovation,” 2000.
67 Robinson et al., “Design Engineering Competencies,” 2005; Turley and Bieman, “Competencies of Exceptional and
Nonexceptional Software Engineers,” 1995.
Study limitations
Researcher perceptivity and interviewer bias
Due to the primary analyst’s previous corporate and entrepreneurial experience, he pos-
sessed process knowledge about engineering innovativeness in multiple domains. This
analyst was careful to avoid letting his experiences unduly influence his interviewing and
analysis techniques68 and/or emphasizing issues he has previously encountered.69 Access
to substantial economic or cultural capital that provides opportunities to engineering inno-
vators could also engender envy in a researcher, causing him or her to view the access
to resources with a biased lens if it proved to be important in the innovative behavior
discussed in the interviews.70 Good interviewing techniques, a specific and tested inter-
view protocol, and careful attention to the actual interview data during analysis (e.g. being
careful not to ignore or discount participant data) were the strategies used to minimize
these biases. The primary analyst is also actively studying and publishing on innovation
and entrepreneurship with collaborators; this knowledge and experience was kept at arm’s
length during collection and analysis of the participant data.71
To further mitigate bias in our analysis process, our team of analysts included engineers
with over 40 years of industry experience, individuals with multiple types of engineering
backgrounds, and scholars familiar with the challenges of qualitative analysis. We also took
these additional steps to address other limitations:
(1) Consistent with a qualitative grounded-theory approach, we analyzed data simultane-

ously with interviewing and changed our interview protocol seven times in response to
our coding and analysis of the interview data. We also recoded our first three interviews
five times as described in the methods section, as our understanding of phenomena
changed due to our coding based analysis.
(2) Coding of interview transcripts was initially conducted by a single analyst. Then a team
of three coders, including two coding reviewers who were not part of the research
team, tested the coding category instances and definitions on each new section of the
interview transcripts. This review of coding began as soon as interview transcripts were
available and was conducted weekly during the one-year simultaneous data collection
and qualitative analysis process.
(3) The research team met separately on a biweekly basis throughout the analysis process
to review details and confirm and/or revise the coding decisions, interviewee selection,
category combinations, and the saturation of coding results.
Conclusions and recommendations

In this research study, distinguished engineering innovators discussed their lived experi-
ences and identified characteristics that describe the behaviors and individual qualities
of engineering innovators from their unique perspectives. Their diverse descriptions of
68 Weis and Fine, Speed Bumps, 2000.

69 Creswell, Educational Research, 2008.
70 Weis and Fine, Speed Bumps, 2000.
engineering innovators were analyzed and synthesized by our research team (and the inter-
viewees) in the co-construction of 20 characteristics of engineering innovativeness. Thus,
a significant result of this project is the first detailed list of innovative characteristics of
engineers developed by engineers.
If we want engineers to behave more innovatively, then knowing the traits of expert
engineering innovators can help us teach, encourage, and assess these characteristics. As
noted earlier, while some of the engineering innovativeness characteristics appear to be
innate preferences, individuals can still learn (through coping strategies72 ) to modify their
behavior to carry out any ‘non-preferred’ actions that creating, developing, or implement-
ing an innovation requires. For those engineering innovativeness characteristics that are
learned, training programs and policies that encourage their development may be easier
to implement, since everyone eventually needs to traverse the same learning curve.
In general, current academic engineering programs are oriented to develop some of
the 20 engineering innovativeness characteristics in their undergraduate students, but
not all of them and/or not to equal degrees. For example, it can be argued that the stu-
dent outcomes currently used in undergraduate engineering program assessment through
ABET73 clearly focus on the Analytical, Creative, Deep Knowledge, Developer/Adapter,
Experimenter, Implementer, and Persistent characteristics, with some attention paid to the
Active Learner/Curious, Communications Skilled, Networker/Team Player, User-Focused,
and Vision/Caring attributes. But other important characteristics receive much less atten-
tion in this framework, such as Alternatives Seeker, Challenger, Knowledge Integrator,
Market/Business Savvy, Risk Taker, and Team Manager/Leader, resulting in undergraduate
engineers whose engineering innovativeness profiles are incomplete at best. Mapping the
20 characteristics of engineering innovativeness onto undergraduate program outcomes
more explicitly is one way in which engineering educators could support and encourage
these capabilities to a fuller extent.
The identification of the 20 engineering innovator characteristics is a roadmap that can
be used for the selection, development, and support of more innovative engineers in any
organization or community. Likewise, the description of non-innovative engineers high-
lights what not to become and which traits to improve in engineers to move them along
the path toward becoming more innovative. Every innovative engineer is a unique individ-
ual with characteristics that distinguish him or her from other engineers. A view held by
our study participants was that many of these engineering characteristics can be taught
or encouraged, and they believe that organizational strategies that support innovative
engineers are required. A frequently proposed strategy to encourage innovative behav-
ior was supporting failure as much as heralding success. To this end, Riley remarked: ‘Well
the biggest sign in the room is, “Make mistakes faster.” And the idea is to remove fear [of
failure].’ For an individual engineer wanting to be more innovative, the first step is to under-
stand his or her existing innovative competencies and then to work on strengthening the
characteristics needed for the role or context in which they live and work. Managers and
teachers have a corresponding opportunity to support and encourage the development of
characteristics that will enable a student or professional engineer to be a more innovative
engineer.

73 ABET Inc., ABET Homepage, 2017.
Future research
As noted throughout this paper, there are many avenues available to move this research
forward. Our specific plans for future work include validating the innate vs. learned clas-
sification scheme of characteristics proposed by Menold et al.,74 as well as exploring the
relationships among the engineering innovativeness characteristics to identify dominant
characteristic combinations or archetypes. We will also compare levels of the 20 charac-
teristics in representative samples of student and professional engineers to understand
how these capacities are exercised in different contexts/organizations, at different stages
of training or development, as a result of different interventions, and/or as influenced
by motivational policies or across cultures. Identifying the relative importance of the 20
characteristics as they are exercised in or developed by the different phases of the innova-
tion process in different contexts within different types of organizations (R&D, Operations,
Corporate, Entrepreneurial, and Academic) will also be an important extension of this
work. Likewise, identifying the relationship of engineering innovativeness characteristics
to the characteristics of individuals recognized as innovative in the sciences (e.g. biologists,
chemists, mathematicians, or physicists) is another intriguing aim. Finally, and most impor-
tantly perhaps, we are currently creating and validating a robust psychometric instrument
to assess the 20 characteristics of engineering innovativeness that will enable students,
educators, and practitioners alike to evaluate their progress in developing these critical
capacities.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation (Collaborative
Research: Identifying and Assessing Key Factors of Engineering Innovativeness) [EEC (REE) grants
1264901 and 1264769] in completing this work.
References
ABET Inc. 2010–2011 Criteria for Accrediting Applied Science Programs. Applied Science Accreditation
Commission, Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc., 2009.
ABET Inc. ABET Homepage < http://www.abet.org/ > ABET, 2017. Accessed February 21, 2017.
Amabile, T. Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 1996.
Ardichvili, A., R. Cardozo, and S. Ray. “A Theory of Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification and
Development.” Journal of Business Venturing 18, no. 1 (2003): 105–23.
Baron, R.A., and J. Tang. “The Role of Entrepreneurs in Firm-Level Innovation: Joint Effects of Posi-
tive Affect, Creativity, and Environmental Dynamism.” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 1 (2011):
49–60.
Bird, B. “Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency.” Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emer-
gence and Growth 2 (1995): 51–72.
Boyd, N.G., and G.S. Vozikis. “The Influence of Self-efficacy on the Development of Entrepreneurial
Intentions and Actions.” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18, no. 3 (1994): 63–77.
Castillo, S. Minutes of the Directorate for Engineering Advisory Committee Meeting. Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2010.

Charmaz, K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angelos,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2006.
Chung, K.C. “Entrepreneurial Opportunity Identification Through Bisociative Mode of Thinking.”
Unpublished PhD diss., The Hong Kong Polytechnic, 2004.
Crabtree, B.F., and W.L. Miller. “A Template Approach to Text Analysis: Developing and Using Code-
books.” In Doing Qualitative Research, 93–109. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1992.
Crawley, E.F., J. Malmqvist, S. Östlund, and D.R. Brodeur. Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO
Approach. New York: Springer, 2007.
Creswell, J.W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2008.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity, Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper
Perennial, 1996.
Denning, P.J., and R. Dunham. The Innovator’s Way: Essential Practices for Successful Innovation. Cam-
bridge: MIT Press, 434, 2010.
Dougherty, D., L. Borrelli, K. Munir, and A. O’Sullivan. “Systems of Organizational Sensemaking for Sus-
tained Product Innovation.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 17, no. 3 (2000):
321–55.
Drucker, P.F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper Business, 1986.
Dyer, J., H. Gregersen, and C.M. Christensen. The Innovator’s DNA. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School, 2011.
Ferguson, D., J.E. Cawthorne, Jr., B. Ahn, and M.W. Ohland. “Engineering Innovativeness.” The Journal
of Engineering Entrepreneurship 4, no. 1 (2013): 1–16.
Ferguson, D.M., K.W. Jablokow, S. Purzer, and M.W. Ohland. “The Diverse Personas of Engineering
Innovators.” International Journal of Engineering Education 33, no. 1A (2017): 19–29.
Ferguson, D., and M. Ohland. “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” International Journal of Engineer-
ing Education 28, no. 2 (2012): 253–62.
Ferguson, D., S. Purzer, M. Ohland, and K. Jablokow. “The Traditional Engineer vs. The Innovative
Engineer.” Paper presented at the ASEE 2014 Annual Conference and Exposition, Indianapolis, IN,
2014.
Floyd, R.E. “Innovation, Imagination, and Invention: The Three I’s of Creativity.” Industrial Management
31, no. 3 (1989): 22.
Fontela, E., J. Guzmán, M. Pérez, and F.J. Santos. “The Art of Entrepreneurial Foresight.” Foresight 8, no.
6 (2006): 3–13.
Gladwell, M. The Tipping Point. New York: Back Bay Books, 2002.
Greenhalgh, T., and R. Taylor. “How to Read a Paper: Papers That Go Beyond Numbers (Qualitative
Research).” British Medical Journal 315 (1997): 740–3.
Hatch, J.A. Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings. Albany: State University of New York Press,
2002.
Haynie, J.M., D. Shepherd, E. Mosakowski, and P.C. Earley. “A Situated Metacognitive Model of the
Entrepreneurial Mindset.” Journal of Business Venturing 25 (2010): 217–29.
Jablokow, K., S. Purzer, D. Ferguson, and M. Ohland. “Collaborative Research: Identifying and Assessing
Key Factors of Engineering Innovativeness.” Paper presented at the ASEE 2012 Annual Conference
and Exposition, Atlanta, GA, 2012.
Kinghorn, B.H. Characteristics That Lead to Entrepreneurial Recognition: A Capital Theory Perspective. Las
Cruces: New Mexico State University, 2005.
Kirton, M. Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change. London, UK: Routledge, 2003.
Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newberry, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1985.
MacLeod, I.A. “The Education of Innovative Engineers.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management 17, no. 1 (2010): 21–34.
MacQueen, K.M., E. McLellan, K. Kay, and B. Milstein. “Codebook Development for Team-Based
Qualitative Analysis.” Cultural Anthropology Methods 10, no. 2 (1998): 31–6.
Menold, J., K.W. Jablokow, D.M. Ferguson, S. Purzer, and M.W. Ohland. “The Characteristics of Engi-
neering Innovativeness: A Cognitive Mapping and Review of Instruments.” International Journal of
Engineering Education 32, no. 1A (2016): 64–83.
Mitchelmore, S., and J. Rowley. “Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Literature Review and Development
Agenda.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research 16, no. 2 (2010): 92–111.
Morris, L. Innovation Metrics: The Innovation Process and How to Measure It. Boston, MA: InnovationLabs
LLC, 2008.
National Academy of Engineering. Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to
the New Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005.
National Academy of Engineering. The Engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: National Academy of
Sciences, 2004.
Obama, B. State of the Union Address to the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC: Office of the President of
the United States, 2011.
OECD. New Zealand OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development/European Communities, 2007.
OECD. Norway OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development/European Communities, 2008.
OECD. The Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris,
France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/European Communities, 2005.
Oxford University Press. Pocket Oxford American Dictionary and Thesaurus (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica-
tions, 2002.
Pyzdek, T., and P. Keller. The Six Sigma Handbook (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014.
Robinson, M.A., P.R. Sparrow, C. Clegg, and K. Birdi. “Design Engineering Competencies: Future
Requirements and Predicted Changes in the Forthcoming Decade.” Design Studies 26 (2005):
123–53.
Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press, 1962.
Rogers, E.M. “A Prospective and Retrospective Look at the Diffusion Model.” Journal of Health Commu-
nication 9, Suppl. 1 (2004): 13–19.
Sarri, K.K., I.L. Bakouros, and E. Petridou. “Entrepreneur Training for Creativity and Innovation.” Journal
of European Industrial Training 34, no. 2 (2010): 270–88.
Schumpeter, J.A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper, 1975.
Scocco, D. The Definition of Innovation < http://innovationzen.com/blog/2006/11/17/the-definition-
of-innovation > Innovation Zen, 2006. Accessed November 9, 2016.
Tam, H. “How and to What Extent Does Entrepreneurship Education Make Students More
Entrepreneurial? A California Case of the Technology Management Program.” Unpublished PhD
diss., Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, 2009.
Turley, R.T., and J.M. Bieman. “Competencies of Exceptional and Nonexceptional Software Engineers.”
Journal of Systems and Software 28 (1995): 19–38.
Weis, L., and M. Fine. Speed Bumps: A Student Friendly Guide to Qualitative Research. New York: Teacher’s
College Press, 2000.
Wenhong, Z., and Liuying, F. “The Impact of Entrepreneurial Thinking System on Risk-Taking Propen-
sity and Entrepreneurial Behavior.” Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship 2, no. 2 (2010): 165–74.
Appendix 1. Interview protocol

Interview participant:
Name email phone
Location: Date(s) held:
I am going to record our conversation, is that ok? Everything that you say is held confidential and
anonymous.
If you mention any specific names, they will be coded using pseudonyms before the transcript
is released for review; you will receive a copy of the edited transcript for review and redaction
(if needed).
This interview is about understanding how engineers innovate and what enables or inhibits an
engineer to be innovative.
1. INTRODUCTION [of participant to researcher]

• First tell me about yourself [for background]: e.g. Where you have lived? Where schooled?
Where did you grow up? Hobbies? Why did you become an engineer?
• How do you describe yourself or what you do to another person?
• How do you prefer or like to work on a project?
2. INNOVATION
• What is your definition of an innovation?
3. THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION FOR AN ENGINEER
• Tell me about the process of innovation [for an engineer].
• Tell me about any steps or phases in the process of innovation.
• Tell me more about the obstacles, the enablers in the innovation process.
• Check Back: Is there anything else about the process of innovation for an engineer that you
want to share with me?
4. CREATING OR STARTING AN INNOVATION
• Tell me about an engineer creating or starting an innovation.
• What is the role of an engineer in this stage of the innovation process?
• Tell me more about the engineer who creates an innovation: what are they like, what stands
out about them?
• Tell me about any difficulties or challenges that an engineer faces at this stage of the
innovation process.
• Check Back: Is there anything else about an engineer creating or starting an innovation that
you want to share with me?
5. DEVELOPING OR MOVING FORWARD ON AN INNOVATION
• Tell me about an engineer developing or moving forward with an innovation.
• Tell me more about an engineer who develops an innovation: what are they like, what stands
out about them?
• Tell me about any difficulties or challenges that an engineer faces at this stage of the
innovation process.
• Check Back: Is there anything else about an engineer developing or moving forward with an
innovation that you want to share with me?
6. IMPLEMENTING OR COMPLETING AN INNOVATION
• Tell me about an engineer implementing, commercializing or completing an innovation.
• Tell me more about an engineer who implements, commercializes or completes an innova-
tion: what are they like, what stands out about them?
• Tell me about any difficulties or challenges that an engineer faces in this later stage of the
innovation process.
• Check Back: Is there anything else about an engineer implementing or completing an inno-
vation that you want to share with me?
7. OVERALL INNOVATIVENESS
• Please think of an engineer who is an exceptional innovator in any of the innovation phases,
someone that you know or have worked with. Tell me about their traits, competencies, etc.
• What are they like? How are they different than other engineers?
• Check Back: Is there anything more that you want to tell me about them?
• Check Back: Can you think of another engineer who is innovative? Tell me about them.
• If time remains, select additional questions that seem appropriate to this interviewee.
8. INNOVATION SPACE
• Does a person’s intelligence affect their ability to innovate? [if not previously discussed].
• Do you feel that a person’s personality affects their ability to innovate? [if not previously
discussed].
• Do you feel that a person’s education affects their ability to innovate? [if not previously
discussed].
• Do you feel that the community or organization where a person works or lives affects their
ability to innovate? [if not previously discussed].
9. VENN DIAGRAM: TRAITS OF THE INNOVATIVE ENGINEER
• Can an engineer be innovative in both the initial/creative stage and the develop-
ment/experimental/design stage? Why or why not?
• Can the same engineer be innovative in both the initial/creative stage and the implementa-
tion/manufacturing/production stage? Why or why not?
• Can an engineer be innovative in the development/experimental/design stage and the
implementation/manufacturing/production stage? Why or why not?
• Can an engineer be innovative in all three stages of the innovation process? Why or why not?
• Please describe the ideal situation for an engineering innovator to be innovative [if not
previously discussed].
10. FOCUS ON THE INTERVIEWEE [if time remains]
• What is it about you that makes you innovative?
• Please describe a situation or an event where you feel you exercised your innovative
strengths.
• Can these factors be changed, taught, or grown in your opinion? Did they grow or change for
you?
11. HIRING INNOVATORS [if time remains]
• If you wanted to hire an innovative engineer for your project/company, what attributes will
you most look for in that person? Or in a team of innovators?
12. NEXT STEPS
• Thank you! Next steps for this research is the transcription of this interview, editing it to make
it anonymous, and then I will send you the edited transcript for your review.
• Also may i have permission to list your actual name in our reports? All of your conversation
will remain confidential and anonymous.
13. CLOSING
• Finally, Are there other engineering innovators that you think that we should Interview or
include in our innovation research?
• Why do you feel they are innovative?
Appendix 2. 20 key characteristics of engineering innovativeness with

representative quotations
Characteristic: ‘An
engineering innovator
is (a/an) . . . ’ Representative in vivo quotations
Active Learner/ Doris: ‘All the people I know who are really good innovators are inquisitive, constantly seeking new
Curious ways to do it better.’
Richard: ‘I think another attribute of people that are innovators; they feel they can learn and get
better at it. They have this sense that-I’m not as good as I’d like to be; I haven’t made it yet; I can
get better at it; I can learn to be better.’
Alternatives Seeker Richard: ‘They’re willing to search internally. They’re willing to search externally. They seek
information from others. They review patents. They benchmark. They’ll go to a hardware store.
They’ll go look for ideas from others. They’re not ashamed to identify ways [that] might be
adapted from what’s already existing in another setting.’
Ryan: ‘But, it’s like a football player. You say, I’m going to go here, here, here. But there’s a big guy
in front of you. So you spin and you go another way. They reconfigure. They have a basic idea
of where they want to go, a basic plan. It took them two seconds to [do] that. But, something
happens, and they spin and reconfigure, and go [a different way].’
Analytical Edward: ‘But it was there where I really felt like I became an engineer. I solve problems using the
engineering way. Analyzing the situation, collecting data, analyzing the data, design solutions,
execute them.’
Doris: ‘The benefit of Six Sigma is if you have the data, no matter who you are, you can make things
change. [What] I loved about Six Sigma [was] the fact that no matter where you were in the
organization if you could show data that said, “Everyone should be turning the lights off at 6:00
o’clock, and here’s why, and here’s how much money it will save.”’
Challenger Ian: ‘This [is] a person who when you say, “Do A,” they say, “Why? Why should I do A? Why is that so
important?” I mean, they’ll push on everything. And, “Isn’t somebody else doing A? Or, they’re
doing B, why don’t I help them.” And, they like to deviate from the norm.’
Joseph: ‘They’re people that are always unsatisfied with the way things are. Where some of us
can get very much into a routine and we get so routine about it that we forget about all
the discomfort or all the things we don’t recognize; these are people that it bothers them.
Oftentimes, you find people who are really innovative are people that are more inclined to ask
for forgiveness than permission.’
Communications Doris: ‘I think [they are] people that are able to flesh it out, make it come to life, storytellers.
Skilled Storytelling is very important. People who can bring what they saw in the field to life for
someone [are innovators]. That’s critical if you want to advocate for your idea; if you want to
bring people along with you.’
Richard: ‘They’ve got to rally other people around them and the idea, and sell the idea. Document
the idea in a way that enables the usefulness of it, the value of it to be seen by others. And sell
the idea to those that have resources that would enable them to take it to the next step further.
The only way they’re going to build it is to get some money from the company [or the market]
to build it. And [so] he’s gotta’ get people to buy in to the idea.’
Creative Richard: ‘I think the best innovators simply enjoy the creative process. They find this sense of
fulfillment that comes from solving a problem, meeting a need to make things better for others.
And after a while, the money has little or no meaning. The process of creation is fulfilling and
worthwhile. And I think that innovators recognize that sense of fulfillment and they persist at
doing it, because they know that the outcome is going to be of worth.’
Carol: ‘[Engineering innovators stand out because of] their ability to generate and leverage
creativity and imagination based on existing competencies and create and invent something
new. So it’s not just based on what raw materials or tools or capabilities you have in front of you,
it’s the ability to imagine and create.’
Deep Knowledge Pierre: ‘The people in my career that have been really innovative have tended to basically [be]
interested in virtually everything. They know a broad base of subjects deeply enough that it can
provide meaningful contributions and information to problem solving.’
David: ‘So, the more diverse your experience and connections are, the higher odds that you’ll do
what I’ll call better innovation and better commercialization, because I call it removing the
distance to your goal line.’
(continued).
Developer/Adapter Richard: ‘These are just steps, in my mind, in the innovation process. Once you select [an innovation
idea] that looks as if it’s got good merit, then you’ve got to build a prototype, you’ve got to
make a model, you’ve got to do some detailed analysis work to set parameter values and try it
out. And, seeing what happens. And seeing if it works, or if part of it works . . . But they’re not
afraid to learn from something that didn’t quite work as they thought but part of it did work. So,
they move forward with that.’
Dana: ‘[Understanding] the barriers that we have to overcome, and just very methodically
going through to get that work done and accomplish the overcoming of the barriers, [is the
developer’s task]. . . . in some instances the barriers are technical. Sometimes the barriers
are human, sometimes the barriers are materials, and sometimes the barriers are just the
intellectual property.’
Experimenter Aubrey: ‘I feel that I have to do something about it or I lose the energy . . . . I have to put in
place steps to see if that would work. So I immediately network and try to get something
done whether it’s an experiment, or leveraging someone else’s work, and then adding maybe
something on top of what they’re doing. But I have to act on it otherwise it just kind of
disappears.’
Ian: ‘And then there [are] other people who you go to and you say, “Hey, I got this idea.” And they
say, “Well, let’s try it. Let’s throw it on the wall and see what sticks.” I say, “yes” more often than I
say “no.” . . . I tend to do a lot of experiments.’
Implementer Edward: ‘I think the ones to implement are the ones with the strongest technical background, the
strongest capabilities to be able to stick to it and follow through and finish what they’re doing.’
Dana: ‘And the people who usually bring the baby home, so to speak, or make sure that the
[innovation] is implemented, are the people who are the fact-based, safe guarders, detail
oriented individuals who are [taking you to] the end of it.’
Knowledge Ted: ‘I will tell you it’s not book learning. It’s somehow the ability to take random or seemingly
Integrator unconnected things and put it all together. And I think what innovation is, it’s that ability to pull
from all these different areas and integrate that together into a solution.’
Joseph: ‘They have a unique way to look at problems and by that I mean they somehow see the
problem differently than say 99 out of 100 other people would see the problem. And maybe
they even have the ability to see the problem on multiple different ways where some of us can
only see the problem in one way. They somehow can see it from different perspectives.’
Market/Business Greg: ‘You have to have some sense of who the right audience is for the idea, who can find it
Savvy useful, and have some sense of what the needs are in the environment [where] you’re trying to
promote the idea. And the timing; whether it’s a good time for this idea in this environment,
where the people that you’re trying to get to use it can really use it in the way you intended to;
Whether they can afford it. Whether they can understand it; Whether they need some training
to understand it; What sort of motivation they might need to try it. What are the competing
ideas that might do something similar? Why is your idea better, or faster, or cheaper, or whatever
the right metric is?’
Joseph: ‘I think [engineering innovators who are market/business savvy] are people that have a
broad set of skills. They have the ability to shift [to] more of that business mindset but again, it’s
not everybody by any stretch. And the other thing is that there [are] parts of commercializing
an idea that are not boring to those that like to do them. But the fundamental idea is done and
now you’re shaping the idea to make it into a product or a series of products for a company.’
Networker/Team Doris: ‘I find you get richer products from collaboration. My idea’s never the best idea. My idea plus
Player the handle that someone else added is always the best idea.’
Aubrey: ‘When you have an idea you want to form a partnership to make it happen, that enables
things. Because you can’t just do [innovations] by yourself . . . it’s not going to happen if you
try to be a Lone Ranger.’
Passionate Doris: ‘They are excited. They call you in the middle of the night excited because their assumption
that they have found the [innovation] is completely all-consuming until they have like fleshed it
out.’
Ryan: ‘It’s [a] focus and drive to achieve something. You don’t take baths, you don’t sleep, you don’t
eat, you don’t interact with people. It’s just a passion to see it done. Nothing else matters.’
(continued).
Persistent David: ‘Ultimately, the innovator that actually [implements] their innovation has a trait I call
persistence. [As an innovator] I’ve gotta’ have the persistence to carry through and probably
lots of people telling me that this isn’t going to work. And deal with the fact that it will take
some of my time, which is a scarce resource. There are [always] many obstacles, so if you’re
persistent and you’re willing to recognize that there’ll be many obstacles, you’ll figure out how
to get around those [barriers].’
Richard: ‘There’s a quote from Emerson that I really love. “That which we persist in doing becomes
easier to do, not that the nature of the thing has changed but that our power to do has
increased.” I really love that because it says that no matter how un-smart we think we are, we
can get better at it if we practice.’
Risk Taker Ian: ‘Innovators seem to be quite comfortable saying, “Yes,” to things that they don’t know are
necessarily going to work. I think this comes down to your perspective on risk because some
people spend a lot more time worrying about how not to have risk in their life.’
Riley: ‘Well the biggest sign in the room is, “Make mistakes faster.” And the idea is to remove fear
[of failure].’
Self-Reliant Ted: ‘A lot of times in the initial stages I like to work by myself. That very crude type work I like to do
by myself just because I can get into the lab, and I do everything, that part I like to do by myself.’
Joseph: ‘I would say what maybe tends to make people think of me as innovative is taking a real
personal ownership of a particular problem and coming up with a solution that isn’t out there;
that you’re not just picking something else someone’s done. You’re thinking of a new way to
solve that problem.’
Team David: ‘It’s a team effort. You may not know at the start of your journey who the team members
Manager/Leader are, but basically, you’re signing up to solve another problem, even if it’s your own, that entails
onboarding at least one other person, typically many other people, depending on the nature
[of the problem].’
Pierre: ‘Colin Powell had a great differentiation between managers and leaders. He said, in his
book My American Journey: “Each are given two tools. Managers by virtue of their position in
the organization can give orders and then bring consequences to bear if those orders aren’t
followed. And leaders have the tools of influence and inspiration. They don’t have that authority
to be able to threaten somebody. All you have is the ability to inspire and influence.” And so, I
think innovative people tend to be more his definition of leaders than they are managers.’
User-Focused Riley: ‘If you’re going to build something that’s actually going to be enjoyably used by the people
for whom it’s intended, guess what? You actually have to learn about those people and you have
to learn about them in their native environment. You can’t invite them in for a focus group, you
can’t send them a survey, and you can’t simply infer, based on your own human experiences,
what it is they need. You actually have to go understand those people, and that’s what we do.’
Richard: ‘People that are good at [understanding user needs] are very good listeners. They
empathize with people that they see [who] had this experience. They’re very good at asking
questions. They will ask questions about what do they not like about their present circumstance,
or what’s inconvenient about it in their present circumstance. They watch people. They are
careful not to jump to conclusions without identifying very carefully what they have observed
the person doing. They take photographs and videos. And, they look for things that are
inconvenient.’
Vision/Caring Carol: ‘The ability to imagine what could be versus saying what is; the vision to see what should
happen five years from now versus what happens today. They’re very much able to define:
“What if?” They don’t have to see it. They can just define it, and they can envision it.’
Jordan: ‘I like to see things happen. I really want to make a difference. I like to help people. I see
innovation as a way to really go to a win-win [situation] to help a large set of people. So, in my
case, that’s my motivation.’
View publication stats

Identifying The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identifying The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identifying The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

Article in Engineering Studies · April 2017

Kathryn Jablokow Matthew W Ohland

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Creativity MOOC Research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN: 1937-8629 (Print) 1940-8374 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/test20

Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering

Daniel M. Ferguson, Kathryn W. Jablokow, Matthew W. Ohland & Şenay

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2017.1312419

Published online: 17 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [208.38.228.244] Date: 17 April 2017, At: 22:21

Identifying the Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Daniel M. Ferguson [email protected]

General models related to engineering innovativeness

13 Kirton, Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, 2003.

Domain-specific models related to engineering innovativeness

Clarifying our understanding of engineering innovativeness

Recruitment and selection of research participants

25 Ferguson and Ohland, “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” 2012.

• Has a recognized history of or recognition for innovations

Using this criterion-based ‘snowball’ approach, additional expert engineering innova-

Demographics of research participants

Table 1. Engineering innovator qualitative analysis sample.

Data coding and analysis

37 Hatch, Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, 2002.

• Varied backgrounds of innovation experiences

38 MacQueen et al., “Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis,” 1998.

Table 2. Example of category creation (CA-adaptable-ﬂexible) using in vivo codes.

43 MacQueen et al., “Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis,” 1998.

44 Crabtree and Miller, “A Template Approach to Text Analysis,” 1992.

Table 5. Example of coding category redeﬁnition process (developer).

Definition of an innovation for an engineer

The 20 characteristics of engineering innovativeness

47 Ferguson and Ohland, “What Is Engineering Innovativeness?” 2012.

Here, we present the final co-constructed description of each characteristic of engineering

(1) Active Learner/Curious: An engineering innovator who is an Active Learner/Curious

51 Pyzdek and Keller, The Six Sigma Handbook, 2014.

The remaining 15 characteristics of engineering innovativeness are presented with basic

(10) Implementer: An Implementer engineering innovator uses domain knowledge and

The characteristics of non-innovative engineers

52 Crabtree and Miller, “A Template Approach to Text Analysis,” 1992.

54 Menold et al., “The Characteristics of Engineering Innovativeness,” 2016.

Engineering innovativeness and other innovator models

57 Kirton, Adaption-Innovation in the Context of Diversity and Change, 2003.

Table 7. Mapping of Innovator’s DNA skills to engineering innovator characteristics.

Persistent, Team Manager/Leader, and Vision/Caring. In particular, one characteristic often

Table 8. Mapping of The Innovator’s Way practices to engineering innovator characteristics.

Learner/Curious, Alternatives Seeker, Challenger, Implementer, Networker/Team Player,

The non-innovative engineer

(1) Consistent with a qualitative grounded-theory approach, we analyzed data simultane-

Conclusions and recommendations

68 Weis and Fine, Speed Bumps, 2000.