Practical experience is hard to beat, but requires time.  Classroom training can acelerate the process.   

The University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies offers a course entitled “Tools and Fundamentals of Web Marketing” (SCS2118), which covers the strategies, tools and techniques used to create impactful web marketing programs. The course examines the role of web marketing in the overall marketing mix and explores key elements of web marketing, such as website design, search engine optimization (SEO), email marketing, digital advertising and the use of social media. The course is designed to combine a strong conceptual and practical understanding of web marketing and equip the student to apply the most important tools and techniques in their business environment.

The course is part of a certificate in E-Business and Web-Marketing designed to provide a practical knowledge of the fundamentals and tools necessary to succeed in business online. The certificate, which is recognized by the Canadian Marketing Association, is comprised of two courses;

SCS2118 Tools and Fundamentals of Web-Marketing

SCS 2115 Tools and Fundamentals of E-Business

Both of these courses are available at the University of Toronto Mississauga, with the next sessions beginning in January 2012. For more information, or to register, visit E-Business and Web Marketing Certificate 

John Foreman, Instructor – SCS 2118 Tools and Fundamentals of Web-Marketing

I met with a very successful engineering products company this week. They challenged me to identify how innovation could help them to grow their business and explained their strategy was primarily organic growth rather than acquisition. Categorizing growth as organic or acquisition can limit the potential for rapid growth – although I understand why some companies steer clear of acquisition as there is a great deal of evidence that most do not achieve the potential originally foreseen.

I suggested that a partnership can achieve the strategic growth objectives of an organization, without the capital cost or risk associated with an acquisition, or the delays and resource commitment required for organic growth. However once an organization decides to develop strategic partnerships the approach to both choosing the right partner and managing the relationship is critical.

In many cases, companies form partnerships for a good business reason, for example, based on individual relationships or opportunity. While such relationships can work well and be very effective, over time the individuals who formed the initial relationships may move, and the strategy of each partner evolve. This can lead to both a sub-optimal choice and a less effective relationship. Without a more formal selection and management process initial informal business relationships often struggle to succeed and achieve the strategic long term objectives of both business.

In addition, the number of really strategic partners a business can have is limited and most companies therefore have limited experience in develop a strategic partnership approach that enables long term success. The ability to choose and manage partner relations is becoming a core capability of any organization and must become embedded into how the company does business and is a critical skill that businesses must develop in to increase their flexibility and innovative capacity.

Some organizations are very good at managing their more traditional relationships yet struggle to develop relationships that facilitate innovation and enable long-term relationships to develop.

By way of example, I was recently asked to comment on an RFP being issued by an organization looking to find a new marketing services company to partner with over the long term. The initial evaluation criteria gave a long list of items that would be considered and a weighting for each. While this might have been appropriate in a more defined situation – the organization was looking for a truly innovative partnership. I suggested they simply list the three main criteria: credibility, impact and leverage. This would encourage an innovative approach and one that would help establish a long-term relationship.

There are a number of items that an organization must consider when entering a long term relationship, based on my research – I identify the top seven:  Capability, experience, track record, alignment of values, integrity, openness and communicative.

The ability to develop such relationships may be key elements for a company’s innovation strategy. However it may require a different approach that in order to ensure that both parties long term expectations are realized, the potential of the relationship is achieved and the two organizations can rely on each other to achieve objectives. To some organizations these ideas may seem to be the normal ways of developing relationships but most will struggle as they will need to rely more on trust than control. While such relations strengthen over time, the initial selection process, agreement and subsequent performance all create a pattern for future success.

Learning how to establish the right trajectory is a valuable organization capability that can be developed.

At a recent Tie Quest Institute event I was asked to talk about business economics and specifically about financial aspects of the business start-up. The entrepreneurs in the class had been exposed to the idea of doing detailed cash flow forecasts in previous classes I realized that the importance of cash flow as the lifeblood of the business had not been emphasized. As a result most entrepreneurs pay attention to the need to create forecasts as they didn’t see them as critical to their business. The fact that over 50 percent of start-ups fail in the first 3 years and the single most common failure is due to cash flow highlights the need to focus on cash.

Given the importance of cash flow I offer five specific actions that I have found can help companies improve their cash flows:

A.  The company doesn’t move into sales mode fast enough, continuing to spend more money on getting ready for the market rather than launching.

B. Most companies under estimate the negative cash flow they will incur before they start to generate revenue.

C. Companies don’t develop a plan B to access more cash if required, either from a bank, or equity investment.

D. Finding other ways to improve cash flows -supplier or government financing, factoring or leasing.

E. Manage each dollar of expenditure as if is your last. It is often difficult for individuals who have previously worked in corporate environments to adopt a boot-strapping approach.

IT organizations have a very special role to play in a company’s innovation strategy.  Virtually any innovation that a company may introduce, be it a new product or service, a new business model or an operational process change, requires involvement from the IT team.  Sometimes, IT is an enabler – a necessary participant in the rollout of an innovation.  Other times, IT is the driving force behind an innovation and makes the difference between the company being an industry-leader and an also-ran.

And yet, is the IT organization itself innovative?  Many IT organizations find that the same discipline and process-focus that allows them to run a high-reliability IT infrastructure and deliver complex projects on-time & on-budget, actually reduces their ability to be creative, flexible and responsive.

The Canadian Innovation Centre explores the special relationship between IT and innovation in a new mini-whitepaper entitled “The Innovation-Powered IT Organization”.  This whitepaper looks at the 3 ways in which IT can use innovation to contribute to a company’s success, the 3 types of innovation to leverage and the 3 most common barriers to innovation in an IT organization.

The whitepaper concludes that the ability to be innovative is within IT’s control.  There are best practice strategies, processes and tools that will enable the knowledge and creativity of the IT team to be harnessed to create an innovation-powered IT organization.

I recently read a book that takes place in the near future. It was about people who grew tired of the wasteful industrial cookie-cutter manufacturing we’re used to today, and the steps they took to re-define design and realize a modern sustainable living community of active innovators to breathe new life into old technology and take back the role of unique invention.

That book is called Makers, and the culture it depicts is feasibly close.

In many ways, entrepreneurs working with disruptive technologies like social media are the makers of today and those like Marcel Lebrun are on the leading edge of Canadian innovation, envisioning a new way of life well ahead of the curve.

Earlier this year, business software giant Salesforce made a significant move and scooped up Canadian social media monitoring company Radian6 for $326 Million. This was arguably one of the biggest plays in the Canadian tech space.

Serial entrepreneur Marcel Lebrun was at the helm of Radian6 at the time of the acquisition and is now Senior Vice President and General Manager of the newly-formed Salesforce Radian6.

The Canadian Innovation Exchange (CIX), Canada’s foremost one-day event for key leaders in the innovation economy is proud to announce that Marcel Lebrun, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Canadian social media monitoring, engagement and insights platform, Salesforce Radian6, will be giving a keynote address at this year’s event in December. This will be Lebrun’s first speaking engagement since the high-profile Salesforce acquisition of Radian6 earlier this year.

Prior to joining Radian6, Lebrun was Vice President of Technology Consulting at IPTV solutions firm, Marnier Partners.  He has also served as Vice President, Fixed Solutions Division (FSD) of Paris-based Alcatel, a leading provider of communications solutions to telecommunication carriers. In 1998, Lebrun co-founded and was President and CEO of ImagicTV.

Join Marcel Lebrun at the Canadian Innovation Exchange in December for an informative keynote session regarding successful exit strategies for emerging companies. From term sheet trends, to closing guidelines, from benchmark data to prevailing practices, this will be a practical guide for investors, entrepreneurs and acquirers alike.

CIX takes place Dec. 1 at MaRS Discovery District and offers a jam-packed day of valuable networking opportunities, workshops, discussions, a showcase of Canada’s hottest innovative companies and presentations featuring representation from some of the biggest and hottest innovative companies in Canada such as, Google Canada, bitHeads Inc., BlueCat Networks, Polar Mobile and more.

Also, as CIX is committed to highlighting innovative entrepreneurs, the “CIX Innovator of the Year” will be announced shortly. Stay tuned to our Twitter account @CIXCanada for this widely-anticipated announcement.

For the full CIX schedule, the entire list of 2011 speakers and for more information, visit http://www.canadianinnovationexchange.com

A new book by James Bowen talks about the ‘Entrepreneurial Effect’ in the Waterloo region. ‘The Entrepreneurial Effect: Waterloo’ contains a collection of articles and wisdom of over 30 people on how to launch a company in the Waterloo region.

Waterloo is Canada’s hotbed for innovation and the Canadian Innovation Centre is proud to have worked with most of them in the last 35 years.

You can find out more about the book in the following articles:

http://www.therecord.com/news/business/article/621877–book-explores-the-entrepreneurial-effect-in-waterloo

http://www.jimestill.com/2011/11/speed-reading-steve-jobs-etc.html

Mark Twain supposedly once commented that everybody talks about the weather, but nobody ever does anything about it.  For many companies, you could substitute “Innovation” for “weather” and the same statement would apply.  It’s not that innovation isn’t important to them – everybody recognizes its importance to the success of the enterprise – but the path to successful innovation is not clear.

The Canadian Innovation Centre has acquired a great deal of practical experience in the area through working with many companies to address their innovation challenges.  Some of our insights are captured in a new mini-guide entitled “10 Best Practices for Enterprise Innovation”.  

One of the most important points to recognize is that innovation is not about technology, it is about people and it is people who innovate, not companies.  Therefore, to create an innovative enterprise, you must create an environment that allows people to be innovative.  A great deal has been written on how to create a culture of innovation and there are many strategies and techniques available, however successful innovation requires more than just empowering employees.

It is also important to recognize that not all innovations are created equal.  The most valuable innovations are those that are aligned with a company’s goals, core strengths and assets.  Therefore it is critical to be able to evaluate and select the most promising innovation opportunities to focus on.

Also, innovations only provide value when they are implemented.  Therefore it is important to have both the processes and resources for successful implementation of innovations.

Many organizations unintentionally stifle innovation through their management culture and systems.  An innovation program needs to identify potential barriers and remove or reduce those that are critical.

At the end of the day, it must be recognized that creating an innovative enterprise is a complex endeavour and there are many elements that must be in place to successfully generate, select and implement valuable innovations on a consistent basis.  Still, it is not rocket science (or at least it needn’t be).   Many companies have become successful innovators and this provides them with important benefits in terms of higher growth rates, increased profitability and greater competitive strength.

Feel free to check out “10 Best Practices for Enterprise Innovation” for practical recommendations on how to increase the innovation capacity of your organization.

Reasons

My previous posting (Sept. 9) elaborated on the novelty and unobviousness criteria of patentability, both assessed by the Patent Office in consideration of what has already been known in the field of the invention and in related fields—the “prior art”.  Although technically an applicant is not required to conduct a prior art search , only to “describe the background art that, as far as is known to the applicant, can be regarded as important for the understanding, searching and examination of the invention”, since prior art which puts into question the novelty or unobviousness of an invention may invalidate any pending patent application filed in respect of the invention or any patent issued from it, it is prudent to thoroughly search the prior art before a commitment is made to the protracted and costly pursuit of a patent, as the endeavour may thus prove futile at the outset.  With millions upon millions of issued patents and published applications worldwide and a vast and rapidly growing corpus of technical literature the probability that one’s inventive concept has already been brought to light somewhere in some form must not be underestimated.

An additional and equally important reason to conduct a thorough prior art search is to ascertain that the manufacturing and selling of an invention would not infringe on any patent in force.  This situation arises when an invention incorporates or improves on patented technology.  Although the existence of a patent for one or more (but not all) elements of an invention does not necessarily affect its patentability, while the patent is in force a license to manufacture and incorporate the patented technology must be obtained from the patent owner to avoid infringement.

Practicalities

Prior art comprises printed or electronic publications (e.g. periodical articles, technical papers, theses, textbooks, and websites), oral expositions (e.g. conference presentations, lectures, or informal exhibitions), issued patents (in-force or expired), and pending applications open to public inspection.  Exceptionally, unpublished pending applications are part of the prior art as well.  In view of the vast amount of non-patent technical publications worldwide, and of the practical limitation in finding and accessing much of this literature, a truly exhaustive search of the prior art is clearly impossible.  In practice, therefore, prior art search—whether conducted by the inventor, a patent search professional, or the Patent Office—is focused almost exclusively on issued patents and published patent publications.

Preliminary search

A reasonably thorough search of the patent literature may (and should) be conducted by the inventor using the plethora of freely-accessible, web-based search tools that are now available.  Issued patents and published applications may be searched on patent databases that are maintained by official patent authorities around the world, most importantly: the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) PatFT full-text database, the European Patent Office (EPO) espacenet database, and the World Intellectual Property Organization Patentscope databse.  The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), as most other large patent offices, maintains a national patent database.  In addition to the official patent databases, several online patent search engines are also available.

Non-patent literature may be searched online to a lesser extent, using ordinary Internet searching tools and techniques.  Ideally, other sources of technical information should be searched as well, including textbooks, periodicals, product catalogues, conference proceedings, theses, and other research and  technical papers—materials which can be found in many public reference libraries and in university libraries—but for obvious practical reasons, as discussed above, such a search is of very limited scope and, hence, utility.

A more efficient search is possible by visiting the Patent Office in person.  The Client Service Centre (CSC) of the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) provides a direct interface to the CIPO and USPTO patent databases and search tools, which is faster and provides greater functionality than the Internet interface of these databases.  One must be prepared and able, however, to devote the necessary time to learning how to use these tools effectively.

Professional search

Failure to identify relevant prior art through a preliminary search must not be construed as evidence of its absence.  Due to limitations in the capability of the freely-available web-based search tools, significant prior art may well be missed.  Unless prior art is found, during the preliminary search, which fully “anticipates” the invention (i.e. discloses each of its elements), thus rendering it unpatentable, it is highly advisable to turn the matter to a patent search professional.

Professional patent searchers subscribe to fee-based commercial patent databases which allow a far more effective search to be performed.  These databases are interrogated with sophisticated query languages and are interfaced with powerful tools, allowing a most efficient, highly organized and thorough search.

A patent search conducted with any of the free, web-based tools typically yields dauntingly voluminous data.  Sifting through seemingly endless patent documents is an onerous, time-consuming task which can be quite demoralizing.  This, inevitably, affects the quality of the search.  Professional patent searchers are armed with highly expressive query languages with which they skillfully formulate complex queries to minimize spurious hits.  Through training and experience, professional searchers are then able to quickly scan the resulting data, while keeping a critical eye for pertinent information.

It has also been argued that searching for something one is hoping never to find tends to cloud one’s eye and blur one’s perception.  An impartial, experienced, professional searcher is free from such bias and is less likely to overlook pertinent material.

Caveats

Many of the Internet-based, free patent databases have limited coverage of early patents.  For inventions in newer fields of technology, this is not an impediment, but for simple, mechanical inventions it is important to have access to the earliest recorded patents.

Pending patent applications are held in confidential status for 18 months following their filing date.  During this period, patent applications do not appear on public searches of patent databases.

Due to the sheer amount of technical information now available, no patentability search – by whichever means and however careful – can purport to be truly exhaustive.  The possible existence of an obscure publication which fully anticipates one’s invention is ever-present.  Prior art searches conducted by examiners at the patent office are also far from exhaustive.  Consequently, an application may be allowed on occasion, while relevant yet undiscovered prior art exists.  This is not at all as “fortunate” as it may first appear, as the missing relevant prior art may later haunt the patentee in court, if the patent is wielded by its owner against an infringing party.  In this case, the first line of defense is often an attempt to invalidate the issuance of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty or obviousness following a very thorough prior art search.  Should significant, hitherto undiscovered prior art be unearthed, this may result in the revocation of the patent (and, of course, in dismissal of the infringement suit).

Recap

With the present day vast and growing number of patents and other technical publications, since any one such publication may potentially render an application or a patent invalid, it is highly advisable to conduct as thorough a search of the patent and technical literature as practicable.  An in-depth search of in-force patents in the field of an invention is also necessary to avoid infringement.  A preliminary search by the inventor followed, if necessary, by a professional search is the recommended course of action.

Jacob Drory is the founder and principal operator of Consolidated Patentwrights, a unique non-profit service offering a complete online solution to independent inventors. A prolific inventor himself, Jacob is a McGill University physics graduate, a former commercial pilot, and has worked for a number of years in courseware development, creating instructional content and technical illustrations, and programming interactive components.

This document reflects the author’s own perspective on the matter. It does not constitute legal counsel, nor does its inclusion in this blog imply an endorsement of these views by the Canadian Innovation Centre.

Are you an order-taker or an evangelist?  The answer will affect the balance between push and pull in your marketing strategy.

“Push” marketing is when you send your marketing message out to potential clients in the hopes of generating interest.  This is also called “interruption” marketing, because usually the client has not requested a contact from you and you are basically interrupting them with your marketing message.   With Push marketing, the marketer plays the role of evangelist trying to create converts.  Typical “push” marketing tools include email and direct mail campaigns.

“Pull” marketing focuses on attracting potential clients who are already actively looking for a particular product or service (or at least, are aware of a need and are searching for a solution).  Pull marketers are more like order takers than evangelists.  Pull marketing is ideally suited to the internet and uses tools such as SEM, content syndication and social media.

Although pull marketing is attractive, there is still an important role for push marketing.  To be successful with some types of product or service, brand awareness must be in place long before the purchase decision is made.  There just isn’t time to do this during the buying process.  In these cases, it is important to invest in push marketing to create familiarity and comfort with the brand. 

Ideally, most companies should employ a mix of push and pull marketing strategies.

For more on this topic, check out our whitepaper “From Push to Pull – Creating Demand for your Offering”, based on a session in of the Ready Set Grow series of free educational webinars for entrepreneurs produced jointly by the Canadian Innovation Centre and the Technology Marketing Resource Centre.

The statutory status of an invention and its utility, as discussed in my previous posting, are typically easy to ascertain. The applicability (inapplicability, one hopes) of patentability exclusions is also readily determined. What remains to be established is whether the invention is truly new and whether the inventive concept is likely to be considered unobvious.

Novelty

The body of technical information, in any form, that has been publically available anywhere in the world prior to the filing date of a patent application for an invention is termed “prior art” with respect to that invention. In Canada and the US, any disclosure of the invention by the inventor which took place earlier than one year prior to the filing date constitutes prior art as well. Prior art consists of printed or electronic publications (e.g. periodical articles, technical papers, theses, textbooks, and websites), oral expositions (e.g., conference presentations, lectures, or informal exhibitions), issued patents (whether in-force or expired), and pending applications open to public inspection. Exceptionally, unpublished pending applications are part of the prior art as well. The “novelty” criterion of patentability is measured against evidence, in relevant prior art, of public disclosure of the physical features (or process steps) taught by an invention. Specifically, when the features of an invention as defined by any claim are disclosed in any single instance prior art, the claim is said to “read on” that instance of prior art and the claimed features to have been “anticipated” by it. In this case the claimed features do not satisfy the novelty criterion of patentability and, consequently, the claim will not be allowed. Such evidence, when brought to the attention of the Patent Office by an applicant or a patentee, or by anyone else after an application is filed or a patent is issued, subjects the application or patent to re-examination and, if evincing a substantive challenge to patentability, may result in the rejection of the application or the revocation of the patent.

Any significant departure from (any single instance of) the prior art, in physical structure, functionality, or procedural steps will assure fulfillment of the novelty criterion. Novelty is also established in two other cases, as follows.

The progress of technology is incremental, building on previous developments and discoveries. Consequently and increasingly, inventions comprise partly or wholly known elements. In recognition of this, new combinations of known—even patented—technologies in which the constituent elements contribute synergistically to an unexpected, unobvious “unitary result” are considered to satisfy the novelty requirement. Importantly, a combination must yield a result which transcends the mere aggregate of the attributes of its constituent parts.

Technological developments arise in the context of their field of technology as solutions to specific problems inherent to that field. This focused view often overlooks the potential use of such solutions in other fields of technology. The discovery of a new use of a known technology to achieve non-analogous ends represents a true leap of the imagination, and such new use will indeed satisfy the novelty requirement.

Unobviousness (“ingenuity”)

Unobviousness, arguably the most nebulous of the four patentability criteria, is assessed by the Patent Office in view of the prior art and common general knowledge at filing time. This view is cast from the perspective of a hypothetical technician skilled in the field of the invention, but not particularly inventive, who is presumed to be fully conversant with the state of the art in the field of the invention (i.e. knowledgeable of all relevant prior art) and familiar with related fields. If it is believed that such a person would arrive at the solution the invention teaches readily and without undue experimentation, were (s)he to seek such a solution, then the invention is deemed obvious. In practice, it is the Patent Office examiner who is the hypothetical technician from whose point of view the assessment is made. Ultimately, this judgement is subjective. It is as hard to predict as it is to render, but it follows certain guidelines, as follows.

Generally, if one or more elements of the invention as claimed cannot be found in any similar form in the prior art and is not part of common knowledge then unobviousness (and, of course, novelty) may be assumed to exist. Otherwise, if the claimed elements of the invention are all found, in at least a similar form, in the prior art from the field of the invention or from related fields, or(partly or wholly) in the domain of common knowledge, then whether or not unobviousness exists depends on two factors: the perceived degree of similarity of the previously disclosed elements to those claimed, and—in the case different elements of the invention are found in different instances of prior art (and, possibly, the domain of common knowledge)—on whether the combination of the previously disclosed or known elements is considered obvious or suggested in the prior art.

Obviousness has been ruled to exist in the following cases (adapted from the Manual of Patent Office Practice): substitution of materials; change in form, dimensions, or proportionality, unless a new mode of operation or function results; omission of one or more parts with a corresponding limitation in functionality, unless that omission causes a new mode of operation; duplication of one or more parts, unless a new mode of operation results; substitution of a part by an equivalent one, unless such substitution results in a new function, new mode of operation, or new use; the use of an old process, machine or manufacture for a new but analogous purpose; the combination of parts of known technology, with resulting functionality that is merely the sum of functionality of the parts combined.

Recap

A pivotal concept to the issue of patentability, as discussed above, is that of prior art. Both novelty and unobviousness are predicated on exactly what has or has not been disclosed in the prior art. Clearly then, before launching a patent application, one must thoroughly familiarize oneself with the relevant prior art to be able to ascertain the novelty of one’s invention and assess its unobviousness. The means to this end is a process called “patentability search” (or “prior art search”) and is the topic of my next posting.

Jacob Drory is the founder and principal operator of Consolidated Patentwrights, a unique non-profit service offering a complete online solution to independent inventors. A prolific inventor himself, Jacob is a McGill University physics graduate, a former commercial pilot (licensed on both rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft), and has worked for a number of years in courseware development, creating instructional content and technical illustrations, and programming interactive components.

This document reflects the author’s own perspective on the matter. It does not constitute legal counsel, nor does its inclusion in this blog imply an endorsement of these views by the Canadian Innovation Centre.