Université Paris-Sud
Faculté Jean Monnet – Droit, Economie & Gestion
Centre de recherche Analyse des Dynamiques Industrielles et Sociales (ADIS)
Les facultés de l’inventeur
Une analyse économique du comportement des inventeurs dans
l’incertitude
Thèse de doctorat en Sciences Economiques
Hervé LEGENVRE
Sous la direction de
Bertrand BELLON, Professeur à l’Université Paris-Sud 11
Membres du Jury :
- Bertrand BELLON, Professeur, PARIS-SUD
- Alain BRAVO, Directeur général, SUPELEC
- Philippe LAREDO, Professeur, UNIVERSITE PARIS-EST, ENPC & MANCHESTER BUSINESS SCHOOL
- Jacques MISTRAL, Directeur des études économiques, IFRI
- Bertrand QUELIN, Professeur, HEC
- Alain RALLET, Professeur PARIS-SUD
2008

2
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Remerciements
Je tiens à exprimer ma gratitude et mon amitié à Bertrand Bellon, mon directeur de thèse
pour avoir accepté de superviser l’écriture de ma dissertation. Son attention et ses
encouragements ont alimenté de manière constante ma détermination. Sa patience, ses
conseils et ses questions ont été précieux tout au long de cette tâche. Merci également à
son épouse, Blanche qui m’a accueilli avec gentillesse dans leur maison pour les échanges
réguliers qui ont jalonné ce travail.
Je remercie le Professeur Rallet de me faire l’honneur de présider le jury. Je remercie le
Professeur Laredo et le Professeur Quelin d’avoir accepter d’être rapporteurs de ma thèse.
Je remercie Mr Bravo et Mr Mistral de me faire l’estime d’être membre du jury.
J’aimerais également remercier toute l’équipe de de l’ADIS et de L’université Paris Sud pour
leur accueil, leurs conseils et leur confiance. Je pense plus particulièrement à Mme Bonésio,
Mr Carayol et Mme Plunket
Les conseils avisé de Paul David ont alimenté mes reflexions. Les encouragements et les
discussion que j’aie eu avec Paula Stephan ont nourri mon travail et ma détermination.
Je tiens tout particulièrement à remercier Marie-Gabrielle Hubler pour ses relectures, ses
remarques et son aide inestimable. Sue Sweet m’a fait l’amitié de relire les épreuves en
anglais de cette dissertation, j’aie tout particulièrement appreciè ses encouragements. Zoé
Mauss m’a offert une assistance précieuse dans le travail bibliographique, qu’elle en soit
remerciée. Les bavardages philosophico-pratique avec Alexis, Ivan, James, Jean-Pierre, Marie-
Gabrielle, Patrick, Pierre, Stéphane A., Stéphane M. et Zoé ont alimenté mes reflexions. Je
voudrais également remercier tous ceux qui ont offert un toit à mes reflexions : mes
parents, Katherina, Justine, Pierre, Jean-Pierre et Marylise. Les illustrations artistiques de
mon travail par Alice et Anatole mériteront une édition spéciale.
Je souhaite également adresser mes remerciements à ma famille, mes amis, collègues. qui
m’ont soutenu et encouragé. Pour finir, j’aie une pensée particulière pour les villes, les
aéroport et les hotels de par le monde qui ont abrité mon travail et mes reflexion.
3
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Comment vivre sans inconnu devant soi?
René Char
4
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Table of content
Table of content ........................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... 10
Note de synthèse ........................................................................................................................................ 14
A brief history of inventiveness .................................................................................................................. 18
Introduction (English version) ........................................................................................................... 26
A. Methodological Individualism ........................................................................................................... 27
B. The Attentiveness-Experimentation-Persuasion model ............................................................. 29
C. How the model will be tested using historical evidences ......................................................... 34
Introduction (Version française) ...................................................................................................... 38
A. La notion d’individualisme méthodologique ................................................................................. 40
B. Le modèle AEP : Attention, Expérimentation et Persuasion .................................................... 42
C. Comment le modèle sera testé en utilisant l’Histoire comme source de preuves............. 46
Part 1. Inventing during the late 18th century in Britain .................................................. 51
Preliminary Chapter - Overview of the late 18th century ........................................................................ 51
Chapter 1- Career inventors and the three abilities ................................................................ 57
Section 1. Richard Arkwright ................................................................................................................ 57
A. Attentiveness: listening to people ................................................................................................... 59
B. Experimentation: tinkering for success .......................................................................................... 62
C. Persuasion: self-fashioning and glibness ......................................................................................... 64
Section II. Josiah Wedgwood ................................................................................................................ 68
A. Attentiveness: learning from History and scouting in London ................................................. 71
B. Experimentation: Wedgwood’s experimental laboratory ......................................................... 75
C. Persuasion: Royal Patronages .......................................................................................................... 77
Section 3. James Watt ............................................................................................................................ 81

A. Attentiveness: the power of observation ..................................................................................... 85
B. Experimentation: the ‘perfect engine’ as a guide ......................................................................... 87
C. Persuasion: ‘steam connections’ ..................................................................................................... 90
Chapter 2. Networks of inventors in 18th century Britain ...................................................... 93
Section I. The Lunar society and relationships.................................................................................. 96
A. Presentation of the Lunar Society .................................................................................................. 96
B. Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society .................................................. 98
C. Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society and another person.......... 100
Section II. The A-E-P triptych, a framework to explain the existence and functioning of
network of inventors ............................................................................................................................ 103
Chapter 3. Passion for Experimentation .................................................................................... 106
Section I. Balloons, igniting a passion for Experimentation .......................................................... 108
Section II. Experimentation and entertainment .............................................................................. 110
Section III. Experimentation, education and religion, the figure of Joseph Priestley .............. 113
Closing remarks on Experimentation and institutional transformation .................................... 115
Part 2. Inventing during the late 19th century in America ............................................ 118
Preliminary Chapter - Overview of the late 19th century ...................................................................... 118
Chapter I. Inventors at the age of large systems ..................................................................... 125
Section I. Alexander Bell
A. Attentiveness: family and city as crucibles .................................................................................. 129
B. Experimentation: analogies, cross-fertilisation and systematic debugging ........................... 133
C. Persuasion: prominent occupations and partners..................................................................... 138
Section II. Thomas Edison .................................................................................................................... 144
A. Attentiveness: going systematic .................................................................................................... 148
6
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. Experimentation: division of labour in the laboratory.............................................................. 151
C. Persuasion: Edison, a prophet of his time ................................................................................... 157
Section III. Sperry ................................................................................................................................... 164
A. Attentiveness: getting the timing right ......................................................................................... 167
B. Experimentation: breakthrough versus fine tuning, the dual reality of invention............... 171
C. Persuasion: Courting the rich and the Navy .............................................................................. 174
Chapter 2. The rise of the inventive hierarchy ......................................................................... 180
Section I. Theoretical background ..................................................................................................... 182
A. Frank Knight: a world of uncertainty ........................................................................................... 182
B. Uncertainty and collective arrangements according to Knight .............................................. 183
C. Coase, Williamson and the transaction cost theory ................................................................ 184
Section II. The evolution of the railroad industry throughout the 19th century in America 186
A. The early years of inventive activities in the railroad industry: networks of inventors and
attentive railroad companies (Regime I) ........................................................................................ 188
B. Charles Dudley, a transition figure from invention regime I to II .......................................... 192
C. The later years of inventive activities in the railroad industry during the late 19th century:
Inventive hierarchies (regime II) ....................................................................................................... 194
Section III. Comparative analysis between regime I and II of invention .................................... 199
A. Comparative analysis of the regime I and II of inventive activities in the American railroad
industry .................................................................................................................................................. 199
B. The two regimes analysed through the triptych Attentiveness – Experimentation –
Persuasion ............................................................................................................................................... 201
Part 3. Inventing during the early 20th century in America.......................................... 203
Preliminary chapter - Overview of the early 20th century ..................................................................... 203
7
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter I- Inventors at the age of predictive science ............................................................ 208
Section I. Thomas Midgley ................................................................................................................... 208
A. Attentiveness: the firm as a guide ................................................................................................. 212
B. Experimentation: under the guidance of the periodic table .................................................... 216
C. Persuasion: creating information asymmetries .......................................................................... 220
Section II. William Coolidge ................................................................................................................ 225
A/ Attentiveness: open innovation at the start of the 20th century ........................................... 229
B/ Experimentation: serendipity and systematism .......................................................................... 232
C/ Persuasion: ‘The House of magic’ ................................................................................................ 235
Section III- Wallace Carothers ........................................................................................................... 240
A/ Experimentation: theory and practice as ‘friends’ .................................................................... 247
B/ Persuasion: the battle for ‘Pure Science’ ..................................................................................... 251
Chapter II. Collective arrangement: the ‘Soft Hand’ ............................................................. 256
Section I - Theoretical background ................................................................................................... 258
Section II - The ‘Soft Hand’ at the General Electric research laboratory ................................. 260
A/ The ‘Soft Hand’ within the laboratory......................................................................................... 261
B/ The ‘Soft Hand’ and the other departments of General Electric .......................................... 263
C/ The ‘Soft Hand’ and the outside world ....................................................................................... 265
Closing remarks on the ‘Soft Hand’ .................................................................................................. 266
Chapter III - The rise and limits of industrial laboratories................................................... 268
Section I. The pioneering years of industrial laboratories ............................................................ 269
A/ Attentiveness..................................................................................................................................... 273
B/ Experimentation ................................................................................................................................ 276
C / Persuasion ........................................................................................................................................ 277
Section II- The celebration of industrial laboratories in the post-war period ......................... 281
8
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section III- New collective arrangements on the rise ................................................................... 286
Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................................... 290
Taking stock, looking ahead ........................................................................................................ 297
A/ The abilities of career inventors ................................................................................................... 298
A/1 Attentiveness .................................................................................................................................. 302
A/2 Experimentation ............................................................................................................................. 305
A/3 Persuasion........................................................................................................................................ 309
A/4 Conclusions related to the three abilities ................................................................................ 312
B/ Collective arrangements ................................................................................................................. 314
C/ Further potential investigations .................................................................................................... 320
Bibliographie...........................................................................................................................322
9
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Executive summary
The chief characteristic of the present economy is the uncertainty. Uncertainty is a partial
and shared ignorance of what will happen in the future. Its consequences are manifold, for
instance, consumers show distrust when the long term impact of recent technologies are
not understood and entrepreneurs find it difficult to predict the combinations of factors that
might turn profitable for them in the future. Understanding how inventors act before
uncertainty enhances our comprehension of the modern economy. It allows us to identify
the abilities that enable inventors to confront uncertainty; it explores the collective
arrangements used by inventors and offer new perspectives for institutional economics.
Inventors studied here are scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs or simply independent
inventors. The model tested focuses on three abilities: Attentiveness, Experimentation and
Persuasion (triptych A-E-P). It investigates how inventors are attentive to the information,
knowledge or insight that could lead them to success; how they experiment in order to
create new information, knowledge or insight and how they persuade other agents of the
value of their work. This investigation is performed by using History as a source of evidence.
Three periods of intensive inventive activities are studied: the ‘age of the machines’ during
the late 18th century in Great Britain, the ‘age of systems’ during the late 19th century in
America and the ‘age of predictive science’ at the start of the 20th century in America. Career
inventors who met success more than once, collective arrangements used by inventors and
institutional transformations are studied for each of these periods.
Inventors can come across valuable insights by luck or can perform systematic searches to
find what they need (Attentiveness). They can progress by trial and error or use scientific
knowledge to guide their experiments (Experimentation). They rely on their personal
persuasion power or they accepted facts to promote their work (Persuasion). Throughout
history, practices underpinning these three abilities have developed and accumulated, they
have been imitated and re-used in different contexts and they have sometimes been
10
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

intertwined within the personal life of inventors. The practices specific to each ability can be
allocated to different levels of uncertainty.
Contrary to popular belief, inventors do not act alone, they mobilise their family, friends and
collaborate with other agents. The description of collective arrangements based on the A-E-
P triptych, casts light on what inventors do collectively. Over the three periods studied, the
division of labour in inventive activities has never ceased to progress. It has engendered a
diversity of collective arrangements at the forefront of inventive activities: networks (1),
inventive hierarchies (2), research laboratories (3) and product development teams (4).
A network (1) is described as sets of relationships between individuals facing uncertainty.
When uncertainty prevails, attentive inventors form networks to share and gather
information that could lead them to a winning combination of factors. They acquire
information, they experiment together and they enhance their reputation and build their
social capital as they interact with established inventors and investors entrepreneurs. Such
relationships can be interpreted as repeated transactions where information is exchanged
for free because of the reigning uncertainty.
Another form of collective arrangement studied is the ‘inventive hierarchy’ (2) which appeared
with the development of large systems such as the cost reduction and standardisation offices
of the late 19th century in the railroad industry. Engineers within those inventive hierarchies
are inward looking and focus on the optimisation of specific parameters, such as costs using
strict decision making rules.
Costs of experiments tend to rise when inventor-scientists investigate the forefront of
scientific knowledge to hedge the risk of losing ground to competitors. Only research
laboratories (3) established on the back of large firms can sustain such investments in such
uncertain contexts. However successful inventors, within such laboratories, remain attentive
to what happens outside of their walls. This is described using the metaphor of the ‘soft hand
of management’ where a hierarchy guides and controls the work of inventors while
encouraging them to networks that nourishes them with new ideas and knowledge.
11
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

When uncertainty is less prominent, another form of collective arrangements is more
appropriate: the product development team (4) where inventors are attentive to specific
applications and experiment with a diversity of parameters in order to learn and bring
innovations to the market. These collective arrangements are presented using a taxonomy
based on different levels of uncertainty.
The study of institutional transformations suggests that during the late 18th century in Great
Britain, Experimentation became a passion for people from all walks of life. They considered
experiments as entertaining and educational and enjoyed the optimism their diffusion
inspired. This popular passion stimulated the development of a new set of norms, incentives,
and organisational structure. Networks of individuals who shared an interest for technical
matters emerged and economic agents developed a preference for occupations and
investments that involved pursuing experiments and inventive activities. This contributes to
the explanation for the intensification of inventive activities during this period as measured
by the number of patents registered. The study of another institutional transformation: the
evolution of the railroad industry shows that transaction costs help to understand
organisations and their boundaries but it also needs to be complemented by analysis, using
for instance the E-A-P triptych, in order to understand informal organisations, complex
industry structures or the transformation of an industry structure especially when inventive
activities play an important role.
The approach adopted in this dissertation, by putting the individual inventor at the heart of
the analysis, could contribute to bridge the understanding between economists who see
economic activities as the outcome of individual actions and economists who study
innovation and technical change as the outcome of collective actions. This would require
forging a common vocabulary and to re-interpret some of the existing concepts used by
different economists building on the triptych of abilities proposed here. This is only outlined
in the present work and will need to be pursued.
There are also promising developments that could be undertaken following this dissertation.
Attentiveness, one of the three abilities, could serve to further understand what a firm’s
strategy is and how it operates. A strategy is a hypothesis about the future of the firm in an
12
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

uncertain context and strategizing would therefore be described as the mechanism used to
guide the attention of agents towards the assets that could become a source of rent in the
future. Another development that could be studied relates to the ability named Persuasion.
By investigating the practices used by inventors to persuade other agents of the value of
their work, we could better understand some of the institutional mechanisms that shape the
preferences of economic agents. This would allow us to understand how some information
asymmetries are created to gain economic advantages by agents and firms engaged in
inventive activities.
13
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Note de synthèse
Comprendre la manière dont nous agissons face à l’incertitude est essentiel dans un monde
où l’innovation est la norme et où les consommateurs sont sensibilisés de manière
croissante aux dangers liés à l’usage des nouvelles technologies. L’incertitude est définie ici
comme une ignorance partielle et partagée sur ce qui va se passer dans le futur. L’étude du
comportement des inventeurs face à l’incertitude est un levier de compréhension de
l’économie moderne. Elle conduit à identifier les facultés qui permettent aux inventeurs
d’affronter l’incertitude; elle explore les arrangements collectifs utilisés par les inventeurs et
elle offre de nouvelles perspectives à l’économie institutionnelle.
Les inventeurs étudiés ici sont des scientifiques, des ingénieurs, des entrepreneurs ou
simplement des indépendants. Le model testé se concentre sur trois de leurs facultés :
l’Attention, l’Expérimentation et la Persuasion (triptyque A-E-P). Il permet d’examiner
l’attention que portent les inventeurs à des informations, connaissances ou idées qui
pourraient accroître leurs chances de succès (1) ; la manière dont ils expérimentent afin de
créer de nouvelles informations, connaissances ou idées (2) et, finalement, leur capacité à
persuader d’autres agents de la valeur de leur travail (3). Cette étude est réalisée en utilisant
l’Histoire comme source de postulats et de preuves. Trois périodes d’intenses activités
inventives sont étudiées : « l’âge des machines » à la fin du 18ème siècle en Grande Bretagne,
« l’âge des systèmes » à la fin du 19ème siècle aux Etats Unis, et, enfin, « l’âge de la science
prédictive » au début du 20ème siècle, toujours aux Etats-Unis. Pour chacune de ces périodes,
sont étudiés : des inventeurs de carrière, dont l’histoire personnelle et le parcours
témoignent de multiples « succès », ou « échecs », des arrangements collectifs et des
transformations institutionnelles.
L’étude des faits historiques montre que les inventeurs découvrent des idées prometteuses
par chance et/ou réalisent des recherches systématiques pour trouver ce qu’ils poursuivent
(Attention). Ils progressent par essais et erreurs et/ou utilisent des connaissances
scientifiques pour guider leurs expériences (Expérimentation). Ils utilisent leur pouvoir de
persuasion personnel et/ou exploitent des faits tangibles et admis par tous, pour
14
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

promouvoir leur travail (Persuasion). Au cours de l’Histoire, les pratiques qui sous-tendent
ces facultés se sont développées et se sont accumulées. Elles ont été imitées et réutilisées
dans des contextes différents et se sont parfois trouvées mêlées à la vie personnelle de leurs
utilisateurs. Les pratiques spécifiques à chacune de ces facultés peuvent être classées selon
différents « niveaux » d’incertitude.
De plus, les inventeurs n’agissent pas seuls, ils mobilisent leur famille, leurs amis et
collaborent avec d’autres agents. L’analyse des arrangements collectifs basée sur le triptyque
A-E-P nous éclaire sur les formes collectives d’action des inventeurs. Au cours des trois
périodes étudiées, la division du travail dans les activités inventives n’a pas cessé de
progresser. Elle a suscité une diversité d’arrangements collectifs: des réseaux (1), des
hiérarchies inventives (2), des laboratoires de recherche (3) et des équipes de
développement de produits (4).
Un réseau (1) se définit comme un ensemble de relations entre des individus qui font face à
un contexte d’incertitude. Quand l’incertitude prévaut, des inventeurs attentifs forment des
réseaux pour partager et recueillir des informations, ils expérimentent ensemble, font
progresser leur réputation et construisent leur « capital social » au fur et à mesure de leurs
interactions avec leurs pairs, avec des entrepreneurs et des investisseurs établis. De telles
relations peuvent être interprétées comme des transactions répétées où l’information est
échangée gratuitement du fait de la prégnance de l’incertitude.
Une autre forme d’arrangement collectif est la « hiérarchie inventive » (2) qui apparaît avec
le développement des grands systèmes techniques, comme les bureaux de standardisation
propres à l’industrie du rail à la fin du 19ème siècle. Les ingénieurs faisant partie de ces
hiérarchies inventives se tournent vers l’intérieur et se focalisent sur l’optimisation de
paramètres spécifiques, tel que les coûts, en utilisant des règles de décision strictes.
A partir du 20ème siècle, le coût des expérimentations dans les laboratoires de recherche (3)
tend à s’accroître car les inventeurs-scientifiques explorent les fronts les plus avancés de la
connaissance pour ne pas perdre de terrain face à la concurrence. Seuls des laboratoires de
recherche associés à de grandes entreprises sont en mesure d’initier et de maintenir de tels
15
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

investissements dans un contexte de forte incertitude. Les inventeurs à succès de ces
laboratoires restent attentifs à ce qui se déroule en dehors de leurs murs. La métaphore de
« la main souple du management » présente une hiérarchie qui guide et contrôle le travail
des inventeurs, tout en encourageant leur participation à des réseaux qui les nourrissent de
nouvelles idées et connaissances.
Quand l’incertitude est moins importante, une autre forme d’arrangement collectif émerge :
il s’agit de l’équipe de développement produit (4). Les inventeurs y concentrent leur
attention sur des applications spécifiques et expérimentent avec une diversité de paramètres
dans le but d’apprendre et d’amener des innovations sur le marché. Une taxonomie de ces
arrangements collectifs basée sur différents niveaux d’incertitude est proposée en
conclusion.
La transformation historique étudiée à la fin du 18ème siècle en Grande Bretagne trouve sa
source dans la passion populaire pour l’expérimentation qui traverse et transcende les
catégories sociales de l’époque. Le grand public considère ces expériences comme
divertissantes et éducatives et se révèle sensible à l’optimisme que leur diffusion inspire.
Cette passion populaire stimule également le développement d’un nouvel ensemble
d’incitations, de normes et de structures organisationnelles. Des réseaux d’individus
partageant un intérêt pour les choses techniques émergent et les agents économiques
développent une préférence pour les professions ou les investissements impliquant la
réalisation d’expériences et des activités inventives. Ces éléments contribuent à expliquer
l’intensification des activités inventives mesurée par le nombre de brevets enregistrés durant
cette période.
L’étude d’une autre transformation historique, celle de l’évolution de l’industrie du rail au
19ème siècle aux Etats-Unis, montre que les coûts de transaction permettent de comprendre
la nature et les limites des organisations, mais elle doit être complétée par des analyses
utilisant notamment le triptyque A-E-P, de manière à comprendre comment fonctionnent les
organisations informelles et les structures industrielles complexes et la manière dont se
transforment les industries où les activités inventives jouent un rôle important.
16
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

L’approche adoptée dans cette recherche place l’inventeur individuel au cœur de l’analyse et
pourrait contribuer à rapprocher les économistes qui voient les activités économiques
comme le résultat d’actions individuelles et ceux qui étudient l’innovation et le changement
technique comme le résultat d’actions collectives. Ceci nécessiterait de forger un
vocabulaire commun et de réinterpréter certains des concepts existants en utilisant le
triptyque de facultés proposé ici. Le présent travail constitue une esquisse dans cette
direction nécessitant d’être poursuivie.
D’autres axes de recherche prometteurs pourraient être explorés. L’Attention, l’une des
trois facultés, pourrait servir à mieux comprendre ce qu’est la stratégie d’une entreprise et
la manière dont elle opère. Une stratégie peut être considérée comme une hypothèse sur le
futur dans un contexte d’incertitude. L’action stratégique peut, dès lors, être décrite comme
le mécanisme utilisé pour guider l’Attention des agents vers les actifs susceptibles de devenir
une de revenus dans le futur. Un autre développement qui pourrait être étudié réside dans
la faculté de Persuasion des inventeurs. L’exploration des pratiques utilisées par les
inventeurs et les scientifiques pour persuader d’autres agents de la valeur de leur travail
permettrait de comprendre les mécanismes institutionnels qui façonnent les préférences des
agents économiques. Cet axe de recherche aurait l’ambition d’étudier comment certaines
asymétries d’informations sont consciemment créées par des agents ou des entreprises
impliqués dans des activités inventives afin de gagner des avantages économiques.
17
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A brief history of inventiveness
The present overview provides a condensed version of the historical facts studied in this
dissertation. It looks at the three periods of history investigated and outlines some of the
salient facts that will be examined below.
The ‘Age of the machines’, a popular passion for experiments
During the last 20 years of the 18th century, across Europe, children enjoyed making and
playing with balloons, they were small scale replicas of the ones that were now flying in the
air following the initial breakthrough of the Montgolfier brothers in France. Those children
sometimes put haystacks on fires and learned the harsh lessons that nature was ready to
teach them. The balloon was regarded as an emblem of hope; a balloon-mania was raging
across Europe. Those balloons fortified the passion for Experimentation that had already
started some years before with itinerant lecturers who travelled from one country to
another to educate people and share their experimental tricks. Dissenters who had
separated from the established church of England were amongst the strongest supporters of
Experimentation and used it as part of the education they provided to children. This led
many of them to prefer jobs and investments that involved experimental and inventive
activities.
Networks of inventors: the Lunar Society
Networks of independent inventors such as the Lunar Society developed across England.
The Lunar Society brought together people who had a scientific curiosity such as Joseph
Priestley, the chemist; people who were part time inventors such as Doctor Erasmus
Darwin, also known as the grandfather of Charles Darwin; and also inventors-entrepreneurs
such as James Watt, inventor of the steam engine and Josiah Wedgwood (another
grandfather of Charles Darwin) who revolutionized the pottery industry. On a regular basis,
they exchanged ideas, shared scientific and technical information amongst themselves
coming from other people they knew, they advised each other. They helped each other
procuring scientific and technical instruments, they organised experiments together.
18
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Sometimes, they joined forces to persuade other people of the value of their ideas. They
provoked or challenged each other in a playful way; they drank and laughed as they argued
late into the night when the full moon could ease their way back home.
Such a network is an attack on uncertainty. Scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs taking
part in the Lunar Society were attentive to each other ideas and achievements; they used
experiments to gain feedback from each other and to spread knowledge. They joined
forces to persuade others to adopt their inventions. Sharing is a rational behaviour when
uncertainty prevails.
Career inventors during the ‘Age of the machines’
During this ‘Age of the machines’, inventors like James Watt and Josiah Wedgwood that we
already mentioned or Richard Arkwright who transformed, through his inventions, the
textile industry stole from nature new ways of doing things. Those inventors, who remained
in history, and many others we have forgotten, started to harness water and steam energy
and basic chemical reactions in order to create practical mechanical devices that grew more
complex over time. Their work resulted in new machines that were meant to serve
mankind and that sometimes mankind ended up serving. These inventors were attentive to
the technical discoveries, market opportunities and social issues of their time; they enjoyed
talking with people in search for an idea or valuable information. Arkwright was even
accused of stealing other people’s ideas. They travelled across the country and like
Wedgwood; they sometimes scouted in the streets of London to understand the latest
fashion and the needs of the new bourgeoisie. Experimenting meant for them tinkering
with mechanical constructs and conducting systematic trial and error. Wedgwood created a
small laboratory in his kitchen to avoid mixing production and experimental activities. Watt
explored systematically the physical principles of a ‘perfect engine’ in order to understand
why the model of a Newcomen engine was very inefficient. To persuade others, some
relied on their natural glibness, most of them engaged family and friends in their inventive
and business activities as they were easier to convince and more reliable when it came to
keeping secrets. Arkwright fashioned himself as a ‘Grand man’, Wedgwood used the
patronage of the Queen to sell his work.
19
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Transformations in the rail industry: the rise of ‘inventive hierarchies’
In 1831, Robert L. Stevens for the Camden & Amboy Railroad in America bought a
locomotive to Stephenson, the British rail pioneer. Three years after, rail lines had been
established in New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts, and
Delaware. In 1840, with 2800 miles of tracks, the U.S. railroad had more tracks than the
British. In 1859, it was 28,800 miles of tracks connected American cities. The steam engine
of James Watt had paved the way for the locomotive and this roaring machine crossed the
Atlantic where a young, vast and expanding nation was in need of new means of
transportation and communication. The railroads materialized as a large-scale system
capable of carrying a diversity of people and goods. It required complex machines, tracks
and fuel but also tunnels and signals. The so-called ‘Yankee ingenuity’ was at work. People
with an interest and an aptitude for technical and scientific matters, were attracted by the
numerous practical issues that needed to be solved. Skilled migrants brought their diverse
experience and sometimes their ideas with them. They joined the machine shops across the
country. Railroad companies hired machinists who built the machines and often used and
repaired them. Machinists moved from one firm to another, selling their skills to the highest
offer, taking with them the knowledge and experience they had gained. Redundancy of skills
encouraged them to specialise and invent new things. They visited each other to keep up to
date with the technical developments. International exchange also occurred between
experts especially with the British ones. This network of attentive machinists, keen to
experiment and tinker with new ideas, eager to persuade others of their talent expanded
alongside the railroads. Inventions were usually attributed to them as railroad companies
preferred to take licences from inventors than to buy patented products on the market. On
such a network, talent irremediably rose to its best use; new needs and opportunities were
constantly emerging, sharing knowledge was a way of helping others, helping oneself and
signalling one’s worth.
However, during the 1860’s, transaction costs were on the rise. The increasing number of
patents made the work of railroad companies difficult. They were facing mounting
complexity on legal cases; assigning rights to the right inventors was becoming difficult. At
the same time, the rising power of some suppliers threatened them. For instance, Carnegie
in the steel business had increased its bargaining power by building a massive production
20
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

capacity in a growing market. Westinghouse did not want to licence his brake systems to
railroad companies as he was determined to exploit and profit from his invention. As
materials became more sophisticated; railroad companies needed to specify and verify what
they were buying. Moreover, it was time for an industry that had grown in an ad hoc way, to
rationalize its functioning and adopt a different approach to inventive activities.
Railroad companies therefore adopted a different approach to inventive activities. They
established centralized, corporate departments staffed with professional engineers. The
personal authority of the technical experts was diminished and replaced by an ‘inventive
hierarchy’ where salaried engineers took decisions based on defined rules. Such engineers
had a knack for uniformity. They pursued a policy of standardization as the industry had
developed haphazardly during its formative period. They established methods to analyze
materials and developed sound technical specifications that were integrated into a supplier’s
contract. They used managerial innovation as much as technical ones to optimize the
performance of the traffic on the railroads and to improve the efficiency of the system. They
were attentive to internal operational discrepancies and costs reduction opportunities.
They conducted systematic experiments to select solution amongst existing technologies.
They persuaded others and based their decisions on financial information, not on expert
opinion.
A new collective arrangement had emerged. This inventive hierarchy was well suited to
rationalize a large scale system but inadequate to defy the providence and bring original
inventions into the limelight. The railroad, with its complexity and the challenge of size, led
the development of an engineering culture, out of which the so-called ‘scientific management
principles’ of Frederick Taylor emerged.
Career inventors during the ‘Age of the systems’
During this ‘Age of the systems’, the rail and the telegraph were loosely coupled systems that
emerged out of a machine shop culture thanks to the contribution of many inventive minds
and hands. Electricity was a system of a different kind, it needed a master architect: Edison
created parts that worked together to illuminate New York and other cities. Similarly,
21
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Alexander Bell brought the telephone to life. Shortly after Elmer Sperry, inventor of the
gyroscope, applied the principles of feedback loop to many practical problems.
At that time, towns like Boston offered to an attentive inventor like Bell all he needed:
libraries, scientific institutions, the expertise of many other inventors and access to
investors. Luck and errors continued to trigger the attention of inventors. However,
inventors also conducted systematic investigation of patents, technical and scientific
literature and they performed systematic searches for appropriate materials. Someone like
Edison enjoyed working on a diversity of projects that cross fertilized each other. Sperry
learned to recognise when to invest in a business field, move rapidly from one invention to
another through close collaborations with the users and then abandon the field as it
matured. Experimenting still included painstaking trial and error. Sometimes metaphors
and analogies acted as guides for experiments. Finalising an invention often meant
systematically testing design parameters in search for the most efficient solutions. Edison
created his own laboratory where tens of experimenters and machinists worked together.
Sperry scaled up models little by little to create his inventions. To persuade others, Bell
found a prominent partner and enjoyed demonstrating his telephone using his theatrical
skills. Edison fashioned himself as the wizard of Menlo Park. He grabbed the attention of
Americans and Europeans by telling them of what the future would be made. Sperry
convinced others simply because he was a talented inventor who courted his peers, his
customers and investors.
Career inventors during the ‘Age of predictive science’
At the turn of the 20th century, science offered some gifts to inventors. The scientific
understanding of the physical world was transformed; it offered predictive power: the
periodic table of elements allowed screening of relevant materials and chemical reactions
could be anticipated. Science started to play an important role in inventive activities
undertaken by firms, at least in specific sectors such as electricity, the communications or
chemical. This was the ‘Age of the predictive science’. Industrial laboratories, an emerging
collective arrangement capable of performing expensive Experimentation, took the centre
stage.
22
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In such industrial laboratories, a new breed of inventors, often called scientists, was
pioneering new inventive practices. This group included Midgley from General Motors who
came up with leaded fuel and Freon, Coolidge, who worked for General Electric Research
Laboratory, the first laboratory of this kind, was the father of ductile tungsten filament for
lamps and of the medical applications of X-rays and Carothers who spearheaded the
development of nylon and other giant man-made molecules at DuPont. Such inventor-
scientists were attentive to what mattered to the decision makers of the firm for which
they worked. They monitored inventions occurring outside of their firm in order to
anticipate competitive threat and possibly turn them into opportunities. Industrial
laboratories were established far from the manufacturing activities; nevertheless, these
scientists concentrated their effort on the core business activities of the firm they served.
They were attentive to scientific development and benefited from the ‘golden age of physics’
which brought them new instruments and scientific knowledge that could be put to good
use. With these inventors, science and theory contributed to Experimentation without
fully replacing serendipity, trial and error and the systematic variation of parameters needed
to fine-tune products and production processes. Theory and practice worked hand in hand.
Experiments required teamwork as inventing became more and more the work of
specialists. Inventors and their boss exploited the image of science to persuade decision
makers in their firms of the value of science and consumers of the value of their products.
General Electric Research laboratory was fashioned as the ‘house of magic’. At the same
time, inventors with their scientific authority were capable of contributing to the creation of
potentially dangerous information asymmetries. Midgley with the leaded fuel is a deadly
example. If it was difficult at the start to persuade high calibre scientists to join research
laboratories and top management of the value of performing pure science to explore the
frontiers of science but the early success at General Electric and A.T.T. helped others to
follow. The First World War convinced some politicians and businessmen that science
would play an increasing role in warfare.
The ‘Soft hand of management’
Research laboratories were established in large businesses but their research directors tried
to keep the network culture of inventors in order to maintain contacts between the
scientists and the business needs or the scientific and technical development of their time.
23
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The first directors of industrial laboratories had a ‘Soft hand’ approach that pushed their
inventors to exchange information amongst themselves, with people in other departments
of the firm they served and with the outside world. As a consequence, hierarchy guided and
controlled the work of inventors while networks continued to nourish them with new ideas
and knowledge.
Division of labour amongst collective arrangements
Industrial laboratories survived the great depression. Their promoters created the
erroneous belief that independent inventors had disappeared. The emerging passion for
science was strengthened by the American victory in the Second World War Firms started
to invest heavily in science. This led to the isolation of corporate inventors and scientists. A
lack of Attentiveness started to reign in the inventive activities of large businesses. Passion is
not always virtuous.
After the war, Bell laboratories, the research arm of A.T.T remained the largest corporate
research laboratory with 2000 scientists and engineers and 5700 people overall. Brattain and
Bardeen discovered the amplifying capabilities of semiconductor devices. Shockley brought
some refinement to their invention that was announced in 1948 by Bell Laboratories under
the name of transistor. The three of them received a Nobel Prize in 1954 for their
discovery.
The transistor, to release its full economic potential, needed two fertile grounds different to
the one initially offered by A.T.T. It needed specialised firms such as Texas Instruments
attentive to its immediate new applications and production issues. It also needed inventive
networks such as the ones that emerged in the Silicon Valley to explore its future
applications.
A company like Texas Instruments was a specialised manufacturer with development teams
dedicated to semi-conductors. The management of the company and employees were
attentive and dedicated to the exploitation of the market opportunities offered by semi-
conductors. Experimentation meant developing low-cost semi-conductors which was
different in nature to inventing the transistor. It was essentially the work of engineers
24
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

focused on creating defect free and reliable production capacity. From a Persuasion
perspective, demonstrating the possibility of creating an inexpensive and simple product
such as a radio proved to be a winning strategy. Companies like Intel later followed a similar
path of specialised manufacturers which did not have to invest in basic research but who
combined rigorous engineering approaches with a market orientation. Intel, however, was
the fruit of another fertile ground: the Silicon Valley.
The Silicon Valley, was a network of individuals who job-hopped between firms. They were
attentive to both technical and market opportunities that could make best use of their
skills. They experimented by tinkering with their electronic circuits. They continuously
tried to persuade others: venture capitalists, colleagues and potential users of the value of
their ideas and work. They did not investigate scientific problems but simply combined and
re-combined electronic components, hoping to bump into a star component or product.
Today, a diverse set of collective arrangements continue to bring inventions to the market,
using the Attentiveness, the ability to experiment and the persuasive powers of independent
inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, scientists and others.
25
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Introduction
Millions of economic transactions are performed every day and, in order to study their
aggregated effects, it is a fruitful assumption to see them as the result of rational actions
conducted with perfect information. However, society is also shaped by the work of
individuals who, without acting irrationally, are braving the frontiers of ignorance and defy
uncertainty to bring new economic goods to reality. Those individuals who face uncertainty
are inventors and their practices are still badly understood by economists. Exploring how
agents such as inventors act before uncertainty should therefore prove helpful in uncovering
the functioning of modern economic practices. This will help to understand the abilities and
practices used by agents when uncertainty prevails. It will throw some light on how agents
collaborate to address this uncertainty collectively. This will also prepare the ground to
better understand what a firm’s strategy is and it will offer new perspective in exploring
how the preferences of economic agents are shaped and information asymmetries
consciously created by firms and individuals engaged in inventive activities.
The inventor has often been portrayed as a lucky guy, a mistakes maker, a hero or an
acclaimed magician. Economists have tended to regard him as someone alien to the
economic system. The inventor can, more prosaically, be treated as an agent who
contributes to the creation of new markets thanks to a number of specific abilities:
Attentiveness, Experimentation and Persuasion, as this will be demonstrated here.
Schumpeter defines the entrepreneur as the one who brings innovation, new combinations
of economic factors to the market: ‘(F)or actions which consist in carrying out innovations we
reserve the term Enterprise; the individuals who carry them out we call Entrepreneurs’.
(Schumpeter, 1939) He therefore outlines a difference between the inventor and the
entrepreneur but recognise that they can sometimes be the same person. ‘The entrepreneur
may, but need not; be the ‘inventor’ of the goods or process he introduces’ (Schumpeter, 1939). In
other words, the inventor creates something useful and the entrepreneur is the one who
transforms something useful into profit. The inventor takes some necessary steps in bringing
something new towards the market or the public sphere although he may not necessarily be
the one who completes the process of commercialisation or diffusion.
26
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Since Schumpeter’s contribution, the study of innovation has largely abandoned the
‘methodological individualism’ approach to adopt a ‘social collectivities’ perspective. This is the
case, for instance, of the evolutionary and the strategic management schools of thought
(Felin & Foss, 2004) for which routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982) and capabilities (Teece,
Pisano & Shuen, 1997) appear in this literature as ‘social facts’ somehow independent from
human actions (Felin & Foss, 2004). By adopting here a methodological individualism
perspective and exploring how inventors act before uncertainty, some bridges can possibly
be established between concepts and tools belonging to different traditions of economic
thinking.
This introduction outlines the specific form of methodological individualism adopted here
(A/) and it develops a model appropriate to the study of inventive practices (B/) and, finally,
it describes some methodological issues related to the use of History as a source of
evidence to validate this model (C/).
A. Methodological Individualism
According to Hodgson (2007), methodological individualism was an expression first used by
Schumpeter, he defined it as follows: ‘just means that one starts from the individual in order to
describe certain economic relationships.’ In fact, Schumpeter was inspired by Max Weber who
in Economy and Society looked at ‘social collectivities’, such as states, associations, business
corporations, foundations: ‘in sociological work these collectivities must be treated as solely the
resultants and modes of organisation of the particular acts of individual persons, since these alone
can be treated as agents in a course of subjectively understandable action’ (Weber, 1968).
However, methodological individualism has since been at the core of a heated debate
between different traditions in social sciences. Felin and Foss (2004) presented the terms of
this debate: ‘Methodological individualism in its purest form builds on the ontological argument that
only individuals are real (...). This strong form of individualism denies the existence and causal
influence of collectives and institutions and argues that they must be reduced to and explained in
27
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

terms of individuals – that is, individual endowments, intentions, desires, expectations, and goals ...
In contrast, methodological collectivism starts with the assumption or even assertion of the
independence of collectives from individuals. That is, collectives such as organisation and society, and
‘social facts’ such as institutions and culture serve as the independent variables determining
individual and collective behaviour and outcome’. This polarised debate has hidden the diversity
of interpretations behind the methodological individualism perspective. The intent in this
work is not to debate methodological individualism and its diversity of interpretations but to
specify what it means for the present study of inventive activities. Udehn (2001)
distinguishes ‘weak methodological individualism’ from ‘strong methodological individualism’.
Strong methodological individualism implies that all ‘social situations’ are themselves
explicable through the understanding of individual’s actions. On the contrary, weak
methodological individualists allow the existence of autonomous institutions and social
structures that shape individual behaviour.
In the present work, the intent is to develop an understanding of inventive practices by
starting from the intentional or unintentional 1 actions of individuals. This is not a reduction
to a purely atomistic perspective on human actions as it accepts the possibility that human
action might have an irreducibly social dimension. Methodological individualism is here a
methodological stance and a ‘weak’ version of it is adopted: It is a point of departure that
can contribute to the explanation of what will be called ‘collective arrangements’ and
‘institutional transformations’ 2. In fact we will see how individual actions contribute to the
formation of collective arrangements such as networks of inventors or inventive hierarchies
1
A proponent of methodological individualism is Hayek. He did not reduce methodological individualism to the
idea that the world is the result of intentional human design. He provides the example of the development of a
path in the woods. One person makes his way through, choosing the route that offers the least resistance. His
passage reduces, ever so slightly, the resistance offered along that route to the next person who walks though,
who is therefore, in making the same set of decisions, likely to follow the same route. This increases the chances
that the next person will do so, and so on. Thus the net of effect of all these people passing through is that they
‘make a path,’ even though no one has the intention to do so, and no one even plans out its trajectory. It is a
product of spontaneous order: ‘Human movements through the district come to conform to a definite pattern
which, although the result of deliberate decisions of many people has yet not been consciously designed by
anyone’ (Hayek 1942).
2
Collective arrangements can be understood here as the ‘Social Collectivities’ of Weber discussed above. The
word ‘arrangement’ is used here to indicate that it can be interpreted as a result of human actions. Elster (1989)
wrote ‘History is the result of human action, not of human design’. The model proposed here will take this quote
seriously and see how the understanding of human actions can help to explain some institutional
transformations.
28
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

which enable and constrain, at the same time human actions. At no point, will it be inferred
that all social phenomenon can or should be reduced to individual actions.
Moreover, this interpretation of methodological individualism cannot be reduced to the
rational choice assumption. The present work will espouse the logic explicated by Arrow
(1994) who sat with Weber and Hayek on the weak side of methodological individualism:
‘(I)n this quick presentation of individualism, I have avoided the term, ‘rational choice.’ The
individualist viewpoint is in principle compatible with bounded rationality, with violations of the
rationality axioms, and with the biases in judgment characteristic of human beings. The additional
step to rational choice is, of course, of the greatest practical importance to theory formation, but it
is not in principle necessary for the individualist viewpoint’.
B. The Attentiveness-Experimentation-Persuasion model
In economics, uncertainty was defined by Knight. According to him, we know something
about the future but we know very little: ‘(T)he facts of life in this regard are in a superficial
sense obtrusively obvious and are a matter of common observation. It is a world of change in which
we live, and a world of uncertainty. We live only by knowing something about the future; while the
problems of life or of conduct at least, arise from the fact that we know so little. This is as true of
business as of other spheres of activity. The essence of the situation is action according to opinion,
of greater or less foundation and value, neither entire ignorance nor complete and perfect
information, but partial knowledge. If we are to understand the workings of the economic system we
must examine the meaning and significance of uncertainty; and to this end some inquiry into the
nature and function of knowledge itself is necessary’ (Knight, 1921). He suggests limiting the
notion of uncertainty to situations where measurement in terms of probability is not
possible. In other words, uncertainty applies when the past does not inform us about the
future. ‘It will appear that a measurable uncertainty, or ‘risk’ proper, as we shall use the term, is so
far different from an unmeasurable one that it is not in effect an uncertainty at all. We shall
accordingly restrict the term ‘uncertainty’ to cases of the non-quantitive type’ (Knight, 1921).
29
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

This was also emphasized by Keynes in a famous sentence. ‘By ‘uncertain’ knowledge, let me
explain, I do not mean merely to distinguish what is known for certain from what is only probable.
The game of roulette is not subject, in this sense, to uncertainty...The sense in which I am using the
term is that in which the prospect of a European war is uncertain, or the price of copper and the
rate of interest twenty years hence (…). About these matters there is no scientific basis on which to
form any calculable probability whatever. We simply do not know’ (Keynes, 1937). More recently,
Post Keynesian economists have continued to explore the concept of radical uncertainty
(Dequesch, 2001).
Today, an appropriate definition of uncertainty would distinguish it from information
asymmetries: uncertainty is not the result of disequilibrium in the allocation of information
amongst agents but a partial knowledge and a shared ignorance of what will happen in the
future.
As outlined before, understanding how agents act individually and collectively before
uncertainty is here pursued by focusing on a specific category of agents who have specialised
in creating something useful and bringing it toward the market or the public sphere. This
specific category of agent is the inventor, and more specifically, career inventors who
met success on a recurring basis. They brave the frontiers of ignorance and defy uncertainty
to bring new economic goods to reality. This does not however mean that individuals act
haphazardly. They imagine what could work, balance options, explore one or more paths,
and come back when they have reached a dead end. They sometimes abandon ideas and
sometimes celebrate their success.
As methodological individualism is adopted as an epistemological point of departure, the
word ‘inventor’ will be used throughout this work to refer to agents who are engaged in
inventive activities and innovation at large. It should not be reduced solely to ‘patent holders’.
Economists have often used the expressions inventors as a synonym of ‘patent holders’
adopting de facto the practice of patent offices. In this work, inventors will include
individuals who have sometimes been called in the profane literature ‘independent inventors’,
‘engineers’ or ‘scientists’ depending on the context studied. This terminology may be
punctually used according to its relevance to the historical context.
30
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

As inventors have played an increasing role in economic activities due to the growing
division of labour, it is safe to believe that they have developed and acquired some specific
abilities to face uncertainty. The A-E-P (Attentiveness-Experimentation-Persuasion) triptych
of inventor’s abilities (See Fig 1) is introduced here in order to enhance our economic
understanding of human actions when uncertainty prevails. This triptych has first emerged
from the reading of many
biographies of inventors.
Attentiveness
These three abilities present an
Persuasion
inventor as someone who:
− is Attentive to the
information, knowledge
and insight that could
Experimentation
lead him to success
− Experiments in order
to create new, useful
information, knowledge
and insight
− Persuades others
(potential investors,
Figure 1: The A‐E‐P triptych of inventors' abilities
potential users, etc.) of
the value of his work.
The Model proposed is an informational one that tackles the acquisition, the creation and
the transmission of information and knowledge. Such abilities are not specific skills that can
help to address given problems but rather a wider set of tactics, strategies, traits and
situations used by an inventor in relation to specific problems and contexts.
31
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B/1 Attentiveness is about the acquisition of information, knowledge and insights. It has
some similitude with (1) the importance given by Adam Smith (1776) to observation 3; (2)
the concept of ‘alertness’ proposed by Kirzrner (1997) which privileges accidental discovery 4
of previous mistakes; (3) the notion of ‘opportunity recognition’ which recognises the
possibility of deliberate search process (R. Teach, R. Schwartz, & F. Tarpley, 1989); (4) the
concept of ‘spillovers’ especially when it is associated with a theory of entrepreneurship
where knowledge created endogenously results in knowledge spillovers and give rise to
opportunities to be identified and exploited by entrepreneurs (Acs, Audretsch,
Braunerhjelm & Carlsson, 2006) and (5) with the idea of ‘absorptive capacity’ (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990) which from an organisation point of view refers to the ability to recognise
the value of new knowledge.
B/2 Experimentation has been extensively studied by the philosophers of science. For
economists, two authors or schools should be mentioned. (1) John Stuart Mill has very
eloquently talked about ‘the labour of the brains and the labour of the hands’. He observed that
inventions are adopted and then superseded by better ones. Nature offers its secrets
through Experimentation and a thorough selection, comparison and confirmation of facts 5.
3
According to him, inventions result from sustained attention and observation: ‘(M)en are much more likely to
discover easier and readier methods of attaining any object, when the whole attention of their minds is directed
towards that single object, than when it is dissipated among a great variety of things. But in consequence of the
division of labour, the whole of every man's attention comes naturally to be directed towards someone very
simple object. It is naturally to be expected, therefore, that someone or other of those who are employed in each
particular branch of labour should soon find out easier and readier methods of performing their own particular
work, wherever the nature of it admits of such improvement’ (Smith, 1776). Inventions are not conceived by
operators only, makers of machines and philosophers also invent through observation:’(All) the improvements in
machinery, however, have by no means been the inventions of those who had occasion to use the machines.
Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines, when to make them became
the business of a peculiar trade; and some by that of those who are called philosophers or men of speculation,
whose trade it is not to do anything, but to observe everything; and who, upon that account, are often capable of
combining together the powers of the most distant and dissimilar objects’ (Smith, 1776).
4
‘Entrepreneurial alertness refers to an attitude of receptiveness to available (but hitherto overlooked)
opportunities. The entrepreneurial character of human action refers not simply to the circumstance that action
is taken in an open-ended, uncertain world, but also to the circumstance that the human agent is at all times
spontaneously on the lookout for hitherto unnoticed features of the environment (present or future), which might
inspire new activity on his part. Without knowing what to look for, without deploying any deliberate search
technique, the entrepreneur is at all times scanning the horizon, as it were, ready to make discoveries’ (Kirzner,
1997).
5
‘Inventors, besides the labour of their brains, generally go through much labour with their hands, in the
models which they construct and the experiments they have to make before their idea can realize itself
successfully in act. Whether mental, however, or bodily, their labour is a part of that by which the production is
brought about. The labour of Watt in contriving the steam-engine was as essential a part of production as that
of the mechanics who build or the engineers who work the instrument; and was undergone, no less than theirs,
32
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(2) Herbert Simon and his colleagues have categorized methods used as part of scientific
discovery or more generally problem solving as ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ 6 depending on the extent
that knowledge pre-exists in the specific fields of scientific investigation.
B/3 Persuasion We can mention here two similarities with existing work.
(1) Akrich, Callon and Latour see innovation very much as an act of Persuasion. They define
innovation as ‘the art of interesting an increasing number of allies who will make you stronger and
stronger.’ (Akrich, Callon & Latour, 2002a). They see the success of an innovation as being
very much linked to the people who take cause for it: ‘(T)he fate of innovation, its content but
also its chances of success, rest entirely on the choice of the representatives or spokespersons who
will interact, negotiate to give shape to the project and to transform it until a market is built.’
(Akrich, Callon & Latour, 2002b).
(2) Persuasion can also be related to another stream of research known as the ‘signalling’
theory. Different agents taking part in a transaction often have different levels of information
about the transaction which can lead to ‘adverse selection’. This was highlighted by G. Akerlof
(1970) in his articles about used cars: a good quality seller can have difficulty in signalling
good quality. Spence (1973) describes signals as ‘activities or attributes of individuals in a market
which (...) alter the beliefs of, or convey information to, other individuals in the market’. The
signaller tries to ‘create a favourable impression or, more precisely, to affect the [receiver’s]
subjective probabilistic beliefs.
in the prospect of remuneration from the produce. The labour of invention is often estimated and paid on the
very same plan as that of execution. Many manufacturers of ornamental goods have inventors in their
employment, who receive wages or salaries for designing patterns, exactly as others do for copying them. All
this is strictly part of the labour of production; as the labour of the author of a book is equally a part of its
production with that of the printer and binder’ (Mill, 1848).
6
Weak methods demand little or no specific knowledge about the problem. Pure trial and error is one of the
weakest methods that can be chosen. It consists simply of picking a solution and trying it. An everyday life
example would be trying a full set of keys to see which one opens a door. Hill climbing, another weak method
consists of going in the most promising direction and to review progress as you go. Means-end analysis consists
in analyzing the gap between the current situation and the goal before starting experimenting. Weak methods
rely extensively on experiments as no knowledge is there to guide the search for a solution. Strong methods are
procedures or calculations which take you close to the right answer. Strong methods are typically domain
dependent. They require an attentive inventor capable of associating the problem with the method. They still
require experiments often in limited number but with extensive use of specialised instruments or simulation
techniques. In between all sorts of situations exist where more and more domain specific knowledge can be used
and less and less experiments are required. Analogy is one method that can help to bridge the gap between the
weak and strong methods. An attentive inventor could see similarities between his work and another domain and
therefore import some strong methods to help him solve the problem.
33
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

C. How the model will be tested using historical evidences
The validation of the hypothesis presented above will be carried out by confronting them
with historical evidences and facts and, more precisely, by investigating the practices of
inventors at different points in time and space.
The present dissertation will proceed by studying a diversity of cases throughout history.
This approach is well-suited to understanding complex issues. The case will focus on human
actions but will require outlining the context of those actions. Yin (1984) defines the case
study research method as an empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context. It is sometimes contended that generalising from a
series of case studies can be difficult. To prevent this, a clear and limited set of hypothesis to
be tested has been established before proceeding and well informed and fact based sources
of information used to build the cases will be preferred to judgemental interpretation of
what happened. Furthermore, by adopting an historical perspective it is possible to identify
what has endured and what has changed over time, a form of analysis that contributes to
bringing to the surface the modalities of human actions before uncertainty. This will require
careful investigation of the events, discourses and circumstances that have shaped inventive
practices and the actions of inventors.
Three groups of evidences throughout three periods and places within the History of
inventive activities will be investigated. The three periods have been selected because they
are recognised as periods of intensive inventive activities within human history. The
rationale behind the selection of each individual inventor or collective arrangement will be
introduced at a later stage. The inventors selected here are career inventors who have met
success more than once in their inventive practices; this makes the investigation of the
practices they use richer and more robust. The collective arrangements selected are ideal
types of their time, and for most of them, the first or amongst the first of their kind. This
provides an opportunity to see the events, discourses and practices underpinning them at
the very specific moment when significant institutional transformations occur.
34
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

D/1 The study of the inventive abilities of three ‘career inventors’ for each of the
periods studied. This will include Arkwright, Wedgwood and Watt for the late 18th
century in Britain: ‘the age of the machines’ (Chapter 1); Bell, Edison and Sperry for the late
19th century in America: ‘the age of the systems’ (Chapter 2); Midgley, Coolidge and
Carothers for the early 20th century: ‘the age of predictive science’ (Chapter 3). These
inventors are not selected because they are sometimes treated by their hagiographers as
iconoclastic genius but because they have achieved success more than once. They are career
inventors who brought a diversity of inventions to life. This will therefore require detaching
the legend from the basic historical facts, to focus on evidences and not their existing
interpretations.
D/2 The analysis of the ‘regimes of invention’ and the collective arrangements
supporting inventive activities during each of those periods. This will include a
network of inventors such as the ‘Lunar Society’ during the late 18th century in Britain
(Chapter 1); inventive hierarchies in the railroad industry during the late 19th century in
America (Chapter 2) and the soft hand of management (superposition of network and
hierarchy) in research laboratories such as in the General Electric research laboratory in
America during the early 20th century (Chapter 3). This will reveal the role of the A-E-P
triptych within collective actions. We will describe each regime using these three abilities.
This will provide an opportunity to connect individual behaviours and collective
arrangements. It will also help to understand how the collective arrangements studied can
enable and constrain human actions.
We will describe different ‘regimes of invention’ in order to compare inventive practices
adopted by groups of agents. A regime of invention is a coherent set of inventive practices
used by a group of individuals at a particular point in time and in a given situation. It is not
the description of what one individual has done but a description of what a group of people
has done. It is not a recipe for success but a set of practices. Regimes of invention here are
an organised description of the reality that uses the A-E-P triptych to guide the analysis.
When appropriate, regimes of invention will be seen as a particular case that embodies the
35
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

chief characteristics of a common case, an ideal type 7. An ideal type should not be confused
with a general truth, a law that could be applied, for instance, to understand how History
unfolds. An ideal type is considered here as an abstract description of a set of practices and
their context that can be common to a diversity of situations that resemble each other.
Such a ‘regime of invention’ that can represent a diversity of daily practices and situations will
therefore be called here: ‘collective arrangement’. In other words by describing regimes of
invention we intend to characterize recurring patterns of how individuals can work together
to invent.
D/3 The investigation of some institutional transformations that have impacted
inventive hierarchies during the three periods studied. This includes the widespread
passion for Experimentation during the late 18th century (Chapter 1); the transformation of
the regimes of invention in the railroad industry during the late 19th century in America
(Chapter 2); the rise and limits of fundamental research conducted by the industry during
the 20th century (Chapter 3). Such investigation will focus on the contiguity of historical facts
during a given period. It will highlight the succession of practices, at the specific cases that
were much talked about in order to understand what lead to ‘tipping points’. It will look at
the coherence throughout time between what is said and what is done. Some institutional
factors will be considered to investigate how the economic history of organisation takes
time and history into account.
The emergence of new collective arrangements or the passage from one collective
arrangement to another will be treated in the present work as an institutional
transformation. Here again, the intent is not to look for underlying causes in history but to
look at tipping points. We will investigate how, throughout a certain period of time, specific
inventive practices have evolved, how they succeeded each other, how they have created
new situations, how they have sometimes contradicted their initial intention and therefore
left very different practices emerge.
7
Ideal types are often associated with the research work of Max Weber. They are common mental construct in
the social sciences derived from observable reality. They are a constructed ideal used to approximate reality by
selecting and accentuating certain elements.
36
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Recent History is not studied here. It is first due to a certain caution, historians have not yet
distilled their analytical power to comprehend this period. We need a certain distance in
time and peace in mind to look at our period in the same way as we will study the other
three. Without doubt, the crest of knowledge has progressed, new ideas, new tools, new
problems and new practices have emerged but it is safe to assume that they can still be
interpreted using the approach developed here.
The dissertation will proceed by investigating the three Ages (the ‘Age of the machines’; the
‘Age of the systems’ and the ‘Age of predictive science’) one after the other. The three career
inventors, the collective arrangements and the institutional transformation will be examined
in this order for each of them. This will lead to the establishment of a table that presents
the three abilities along different levels of uncertainty 8 and to another table that present a
diversity of collective arrangements supporting inventive activities along the same three
levels of uncertainty 9. Further potential development will finally be suggested.
8
See infra: ‘Taking Stock and looking ahead’.
9
See infra: ‘Taking Stock and looking ahead’.
37
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Introduction
Des millions de transactions économiques s’effectuent tous les jours et, afin d’étudier leurs
effets cumulés, il est judicieux de les envisager comme le résultat d’actions rationnelles
menées par des individus parfaitement informés. Cependant, la société est également
façonnée par le travail d’individus qui, sans pour autant agir de manière irrationnelle, bravent
les frontières de la connaissance et défient l’incertitude afin que de nouveaux biens
économiques voient le jour.
Les individus qui affrontent l’incertitude sont des inventeurs, et les économistes
comprennent encore mal leurs pratiques. Etudier la manière dont certains agents tels que
les inventeurs agissent face à l’incertitude devrait, par conséquent, nous permettre de
dégager le fonctionnement des pratiques économiques modernes, et de mieux comprendre
les aptitudes de ces agents et les pratiques auxquelles ils ont recours lorsque l’incertitude
prévaut. Cette analyse se propose également de mettre en lumière la manière dont les
agents coopèrent pour faire face ensemble à cette incertitude.
Cette nouvelle perspective concluera par des suggestions pour mieux comprendre
comment les firmes exécutent leur stratégie. Des propositions seront aussi faites pour
étudier sous un angle nouveau la manière dont les préférences des agents économiques sont
façonnées, et comment des asymétries d’informations sont consciemment créées par les
entreprises et les individus impliqués dans des activités inventives.
On a souvent décrit l’inventeur comme un homme découvrant des idées par chance,
progressant par erreurs, comme un héros ou encore un magicien acclamé par tous. Les
économistes ont souvent eu tendance à le considérer comme un élément étranger au
système économique. De manière plus prosaïque, on peut concevoir l’inventeur comme un
agent contribuant à la création de nouveaux marchés grâce à certaines facultés spécifiques, à
savoir l’Attention, l’Expérimentation et la Persuasion, comme nous le démontrerons plus
loin. Selon Schumpeter, l’entrepreneur apporte des innovations et de nouvelles
combinaisons de facteurs économiques au marché : « Pour les actions qui consistent à faire

preuve d’innovation, nous réservons le terme d’Entreprise; et les individus qui les accomplissent sont
appelés Entrepreneurs » (Schumpeter, 1939).
Schumpeter fait ainsi la distinction entre la figure de l’inventeur et celle de l’entrepreneur
mais reconnaît qu’ils peuvent parfois ne faire qu’un: « L’entrepreneur peut être, mais pas
nécessairement, l’inventeur des biens ou des procédés qu’il introduit (sur le marché) »
(Schumpeter, 1939). En d’autres termes, l’inventeur crée quelque chose d’utile tandis que
l’entrepreneur est celui qui transforme quelque chose d’utile en profits. L’inventeur prend
les initiatives nécessaires pour apporter quelque chose de nouveau vers le marché ou à la
sphère publique, même s’il n’est pas nécessairement celui qui réalisera la commercialisation
ou la diffusion.
Depuis les travaux de Schumpeter, les recherches dans le domaine de l’innovation ont
largement abandonné l’approche de « l’individualisme méthodologique » pour lui préférer un
angle d’étude centré sur les « collectivités sociales ». C’est par exemple le cas des théories du
management stratégique et le courant évolutionnistes (Felin & Foss, 2004) qui considèrent
dans les ouvrages qui leur sont consacrés les routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982) et les
compétences (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997) comme des « faits sociaux » indépendants des
actions humaines (Felin & Foss, 2004). En adoptant ici l’approche de l’individualisme
méthodologique et en cherchant à comprendre comment les inventeurs agissent face à
l’incertitude, certains liens peuvent être établis entre des concepts et des outils d’analyse
appartenant à différents courants de pensée économique.
Nous présenterons dans cette introduction la forme spécifique d’individualisme
méthodologique employée dans cette étude (A/) et proposerons un modèle permettant
l’analyse des pratiques inventives (B/). Enfin, nous décrirons certaines difficultés
méthodologiques liées au recours à l’Histoire en tant que source de preuves pour valider ce
modèle (C/).
39
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A. La notion d’individualisme méthodologique
Selon Hodgson (2007), le terme d'individualisme méthodologique a été employé pour la
première fois par Schumpeter, qui le définit comme suit: « il faut tout simplement se baser sur
l'individu afin de décrire certaines relations économiques 10 ». En effet, Schumpeter s’est inspiré
de Max Weber qui, dans son ouvrage « Economie et société », se penche sur les
« collectivités sociales » telles que les États, les associations, les entreprises, ou les fondations:
« Lors de toute étude sociologique il faut uniquement envisager ces collectivités comme des modes
d'organisation résultant des actions d’individus donnés, étant donné que seuls ces derniers peuvent
être considérés comme des agents engagés dans des actions compréhensibles subjectivement 11 »
(Weber, 1968).
Toutefois, l'individualisme méthodologique a depuis lors fait l’objet d'un vif débat entre
différentes traditions des sciences sociales. Felin et Foss (2004) ont présenté en ces termes
ce débat: « l'individualisme méthodologique dans sa forme la plus pure se fonde sur l'argument
ontologique selon lequel seuls les individus sont réels (...). Cette forte forme d'individualisme nie
l'existence et l'influence déterminante des collectivités et des institutions et soutient qu'elles doivent
être réduites et expliquées en termes d’individus – à savoir de dotations, intentions, désirs, attentes
et objectifs individuels (...). En revanche, le collectivisme méthodologique se base sur l'hypothèse
voire même l’affirmation de l'indépendance des collectivités par rapport aux individus : les
collectivités telles que les organisations et sociétés, et les « faits sociaux » tels que les institutions et
la culture servent de variables indépendantes déterminant les comportements et les résultats
individuels et collectifs 12 ».
Ce débat polarisé a occulté la diversité d’interprétation inhérente à la perspective de
l'individualisme méthodologique. Le but de ce travail n'est pas de débattre de l'individualisme
méthodologique et de la diversité de ses interprétations, mais de préciser ce que nous
entendons par « individualisme méthodologique » lors de notre analyse des activités
inventives. Udehn (2001) fait la distinction entre « individualisme méthodologique faible » et
« individualisme méthodologique fort ».
10
Traduction personnelle.
11
Traduction personnelle.
12
Traduction personnelle.
40
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

L’individualisme méthodologique fort implique que toutes les « situations sociales »
s’expliquent elles-mêmes à travers la compréhension des actions individuelles. Au contraire,
l’individualisme méthodologique faible conçoit l'existence d'institutions et de structures
sociales autonomes qui façonnent les comportements individuels.
Notre intention est de développer au cours de notre étude une compréhension des
pratiques inventives en partant des actions intentionnelles ou non intentionnelles des
individus. Nous ne nous restreignons nullement à une perspective purement atomistique des
actions humaines dans la mesure ou nous acceptons l’éventualité que l'action de l'homme
puisse posséder une dimension sociale irréductible. L'individualisme méthodologique
s’emploie ici comme positionnement méthodologique et nous l’adoptons dans sa version «
faible » : il s'agit d'un point de départ qui peut contribuer à expliquer ce que nous
appellerons les « arrangements collectifs » et les « transformations institutionnelles ».
Nous verrons en effet comment les actions individuelles contribuent à la formation
d’arrangements collectifs tels que les réseaux d'inventeurs ou les hiérarchies inventives qui
favorisent et limitent à la fois les actions humaines. Nous n’insinuerons à aucun moment que
tous les phénomènes sociaux doivent ou devraient être réduits à des actions individuelles.
En outre, cette interprétation de l'individualisme méthodologique ne peut être assimilée à
une hypothèse de choix rationnel. Le présent travail épousera la logique explicitée par
Arrow (1994) qui se situe du côté de l'individualisme méthodologique « faible » avec Weber
et Hayek.
« Dans cette rapide présentation de l'individualisme, j'ai évité le terme de «choix rationnel». Le point
de vue individualiste est, en principe, compatible avec la rationalité limitée, les violations des
axiomes de rationalité, et les préjugés caractérisant les êtres humains. L'étape supplémentaire que
constitue le choix rationnel est, bien sûr, d’une grande importance pratique à l’heure d’élaborer une
théorie, mais n'est en principe pas nécessaire pour ce qui est de la perspective individualiste. 13 »
13
Traduction personnelle.
41
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. Le modèle AEP : Attention, Expérimentation et Persuasion
En économie, l'incertitude a été définie par Knight. Selon lui, nous avons quelques
connaissances quant à l’avenir, mais elles demeurent très limitées: « Concernant l’avenir, les
choses de la vie sont dans un sens superficiel importunément évidentes et relèvent de la pure
observation élémentaire. Nous vivons dans un monde de changement et d'incertitude. Nous vivons
uniquement en ayant une idée de l'avenir, tandis que les problèmes de la vie, ou de gestion du
moins, résultent du fait que nous en savons si peu.
Ceci s’applique tant aux entreprises qu’aux autres sphères d'activité. L'essence de la situation est
l'action découlant de l'opinion, possédant une valeur ou un fondement plus ou moins important. Il
n’existe ni ignorance totale ni information parfaite, mais une connaissance partielle. Si nous voulons
comprendre le fonctionnement du système économique, nous devons examiner le sens et
l'importance de l'incertitude, et à cette fin, il est nécessaire d’explorer la nature et la fonction de la
connaissance elle-même 14 » (Knight, 1921).
Il suggère de limiter la notion d'incertitude aux situations où la mesure en termes de
probabilité est impossible. En d'autres termes, l'incertitude est de mise lorsque le passé ne
nous fournit aucune information sur l'avenir. « Il apparaît qu’une incertitude mesurable, ou un «
risque » proprement dit, comme nous l’appellerons, est si différent d’une incertitude non mesurable,
qu’elle n’en est en fait pas une du tout. Nous allons par conséquent restreindre le terme
d «’incertitude » aux seuls cas où elle n’est pas mesurable. 15» (Knight, 1921).
Keynes l’a également souligné dans une phrase célèbre : « Par le terme de connaissance
« incertaine », je ne souhaite pas simplement faire la distinction entre ce qui est connu comme
certain de ce qui est seulement probable. Le jeu de la roulette n'est pas soumis, en ce sens, à
l'incertitude (...). Le sens dans lequel je comprends ce terme est celui dans lequel la perspective
d'une guerre européenne est incertaine, ou le prix du cuivre et le taux d'intérêt d’ici vingt ans (...).
Pour ces questions, il n'existe aucune base scientifique permettant de calculer une quelconque
probabilité. Nous ne savons tout simplement pas 16 » (Keynes, 1937). Plus récemment, les
14
Traduction personnelle.
15
Traduction personnelle.
16
Traduction personnelle.
42
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

économistes post-keynésiens ont poursuivi leurs recherches sur le concept d'incertitude
radicale (Dequesch, 2001).
Aujourd'hui, une définition adéquate de l'incertitude ferait la distinction entre incertitude et
asymétries d’informations: l'incertitude n'est pas le résultat d'un déséquilibre au niveau de la
répartition de l'information entre les agents, mais d’une connaissance partielle et d’une
ignorance partagée de ce qui se passera dans l'avenir.
Comme nous l’avons indiqué précédemment, nous cherchons ici à comprendre comment
les agents agissent individuellement et collectivement face à l'incertitude; nous nous basons
sur une catégorie particulière d'agents qui s’attachent à créer quelque chose d'utile et à
l’amener sur le marché ou dans la sphère publique : il s’agit de l'inventeur, et plus
précisément des inventeurs de carrière dont le parcours témoigne de multiples succès.
Ils bravent les frontières de la connaissance et défient l’incertitude afin que de nouveaux
biens économiques voient le jour, ce qui ne veut pas pour autant dire qu’ils agissent de façon
aléatoire. Ils imaginent ce qui pourrait fonctionner, envisagent différentes options, explorent
une ou plusieurs voies, et changent de stratégie quand ils atteignent une impasse. Ils
renoncent parfois à des idées et célèbrent d’autres fois leur succès.
De même que nous adopterons l'individualisme méthodologique comme point de départ
épistémologique, le mot « inventeur » sera utilisé tout au long de ce travail pour se référer à
des agents engagés dans des activités inventives et d'innovation au sens large. Il ne se réduit
pas uniquement aux « détenteurs de brevets ». Les économistes ont souvent utilisé
l’expression d’inventeur dans le sens de « détenteurs de brevets », entérinant de fait
l’existence des offices de brevets.
Dans ce travail, le terme d’inventeur inclura les individus que la littérature populaire a
parfois appelé «inventeurs indépendants», «ingénieurs» ou encore «scientifiques ». Cette
terminologie pourra être ponctuellement utilisée en fonction de sa pertinence pour le
contexte historique étudié.
43
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Etant donné que les inventeurs ont joué un rôle croissant dans les activités économiques en
raison de la division croissante du travail, on peut affirmer qu'ils ont développé et acquis des
compétences spécifiques pour faire face à l'incertitude. Le tryptique A-E-P (Attention,
Expérimentation, Persuasion) des facultés de l’inventeur (voir figure 1) est présenté ici afin
d'améliorer notre compréhension économique des activités humaines quand l'incertitude
prévaut. Ce triptyque a été formulé après la lecture préalable de nombreuses biographies
d’inventeurs.
Attention
Ces trois aptitudes présentent
l’inventeur comme un individu :
Persuasion
- Attentif aux informations,
connaissances ou idées qui
pourraient accroître ses
chances de succès,
Experimentation
- qui Expérimente afin de
créer des informations, des
connaissances et des idées
nouvelles et utiles
- et Persuade les autres
(investisseurs et utilisateurs
potentiels) de la valeur de
son travail. Figure 2: Le tryptique A‐E‐P de facultés des inventeurs
Le Modèle proposé est informationnel et prend en compte l'acquisition, la création et la
transmission des informations et des connaissances. Ces aptitudes ne sont pas des
compétences spécifiques qui peuvent aider à résoudre certains problèmes mais plutôt un
ensemble plus vaste de tactiques, stratégies, caractéristiques et situations utilisées par un
inventeur pour faire face à certains problèmes et contextes spécifiques.
B/1 L’Attention fait référence à l'acquisition d'informations, de connaissances ou d'idées.
Elle est comparable à (1) l'importance accordée par Adam Smith (1776) à l'observation, et à
(2) la notion de « vigilance » (alertness) proposé par Kirzrner (1997), qui privilégie la
44
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

découverte accidentelle par essais et erreurs. On peut également rapprocher cette notion
de celle de (3) « reconnaissance d’opportunités » qui admet la possibilité que le processus
de recherche soit délibéré (R. Teach, R. Schwartz, et F. Tarpley, 1989); (4), et du concept de
« retombées » (spillovers), tout particulièrement lorsqu’il est associé à une théorie de
l'entreprenariat qui considère que le savoir créé entraîne des retombées endogènes sur la
connaissance, et créé un contexte favorable lui permettant d'être identifié et exploité par
des entrepreneurs (Acs, Audretsch, Braunerhjelm et Carlsson, 2006). On peut enfin
l’associer (5) à l'idée de « capacité d'absorption » (Cohen et Levinthal, 1990), qui, du point de
vue d’une organisation, se réfère à la capacité de reconnaître la valeur de nouvelles
connaissances.
B/2. L'Expérimentation a été largement étudiée par les philosophes des sciences. Pour
les économistes, deux auteurs ou écoles se doivent d’être mentionnés. (1) John Stuart Mill a
longuement écrit sur le « travail des cerveaux » et le « travail des mains». Il a fait observer
que les inventions sont adoptées puis remplacées par de meilleures. La nature dévoile ses
secrets à travers l'Expérimentation et une sélection, une comparaison et une confirmation
des faits rigoureuses. (2) Herbert Simon et ses pairs ont classé les méthodes utilisées dans le
cadre de la découverte scientifique ou, plus généralement pour la résolution de problèmes,
comme « faible » ou « forte » en fonction de la mesure dans laquelle la connaissance
préexiste dans les domaines spécifiques de la recherche scientifique en question.
B/3. La Persuasion. Nous pouvons citer ici deux similitudes avec d’autres travaux. (1)
Akrich, Callon et Latour considèrent largement l’innovation comme un acte de Persuasion.
Ils définissent l'innovation comme « l'art d’intéresser un nombre croissant d'alliés qui vous
rendront de plus en plus fort 17» (Akrich, Callon et Latour, 2002a). Ils considèrent que le
succès rencontré par une innovation est étroitement lié aux personnes qui la soutiennent:
«Le sort de l'innovation, son contenu mais également ses chances de succès, repose entièrement sur
le choix des représentants ou porte-paroles qui vont interagir et négocier pour donner forme au
projet et le transformer jusqu'à ce qu’un marché soit créé » (Akrich, Callon et Latour, 2002b)
(2).
17
Traduction personnelle.
45
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

On peut également rapprocher la Persuasion d’un autre courant de pensée connu sous le
nom de théorie de la « signalisation ». Les différents agents qui prennent part à une
transaction disposent souvent de différents niveaux d'informations quant à cette transaction,
ce qui peut conduire à «une sélection adverse» ou « antisélection ». G. Akerlof (1970) a
souligné cette idée dans ses articles sur les voitures d'occasion: un vendeur possédant des
produits de bonne qualité peut avoir des difficultés à « signaler » au public cette bonne
qualité. Selon Spence (1973), les « signaux » sont des « activités ou attributs d’individus sur un
marché qui (...) modifient les croyances d’autres personnes sur ce marché, ou leur transmet des
informations ». Le « signaleur » tente de «créer une impression favorable ou, plus précisément,
d'affecter les croyances subjectives et probabilistes [du récepteur] 18».
C. De quelle manière le modèle sera testé en utilisant l’Histoire comme
source de preuves
Les hypothèses présentées ci-dessus seront validées après avoir été confrontées à des
preuves et faits historiques et, plus précisément, en étudiant les pratiques des inventeurs à
différents points de l’espace et du temps.
Nous procéderons à l'étude d’une large gamme de cas à travers l'Histoire. Cette approche
est bien adaptée à la résolution de questions complexes. Nous nous concentrerons sur les
actions humaines, tout en décrivant le contexte de ces actions. Yin (1984) définit la méthode
de recherche procédant par l'étude de cas comme une enquête empirique qui étudie un
phénomène contemporain dans son contexte réel.
On a parfois avancé qu’il peut être difficile de généraliser à partir d'une série d'études de
cas. Pour éviter cet écueil, une série claire et limitée d'hypothèses à tester a été établie
avant de procéder à notre analyse. Nous nous référerons à des sources d’informations
sûres et basées sur des faits concrets pour construire nos cas, et non à des interprétations
biaisées de ce qui s’est produit.
18
Traduction personnelle.
46
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

En outre, en adoptant une perspective historique, il est possible d'identifier ce qui a changé
ou non au fil du temps, une forme d’analyse qui contribue à révéler les modalités des actions
de l'homme dans un contexte d’incertitude. Une étude minutieuse des événements, des
discours et des circonstances qui ont façonné les pratiques inventives et les actions des
inventeurs est ici requise.
Nous étudierons trois groupes de preuves au cours de trois périodes de l'Histoire des
activités inventives. Nous avons choisi ces trois périodes car elles ont été reconnues comme
des périodes d'intense activité inventive. Nous expliquerons à un stade ultérieur le
processus de sélection de chacun des inventeurs et arrangements collectifs.
Les inventeurs sélectionnés ici sont des inventeurs de carrière dont le parcours témoigne de
multiples succès, ce qui rend l'étude de leurs pratiques inventives plus riche et plus solide.
Les arrangements collectifs choisis sont des idéaux-type de leur temps, et pour la plupart, le
premier ou parmi les premiers du genre. Nous pourrons ainsi appréhender les événements,
les discours et les pratiques qui les sous-tendent au moment précis où d'importantes
transformations institutionnelles ont eu lieu.
D/1. L'étude des facultés inventives de trois « inventeurs de carrière » pour
chacune des périodes étudiées.
Il s'agira notamment de Arkwright, Wedgwood et Watt à la fin du 18ème siècle en Grande-
Bretagne : «l'âge des machines » (Chapitre 1); de Bell, Edison et Sperry à la fin du 19ème
siècle aux Etats-Unis: « l'âge des systèmes » (Chapitre 2); et de Midgley, Coolidge et
Carothers au début du 20ème siècle: « l'âge de la science prédictive » (Chapitre 3).
Nous n’avons pas choisi ces inventeurs parce que leurs hagiographes les ont parfois qualifiés
de génies iconoclastes, mais parce leurs activités inventives ont été couronnées de succès
plus d'une fois. Ce sont des inventeurs de carrière qui ont donné naissance à des inventions
diverses et variées. Il faudra donc s’attacher à dissocier la légende des faits historiques, et se
concentrer sur les preuves et non sur leurs diverses interprétations.
47
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

D/2. Analyse des « régimes d'invention » et des arrangements collectifs
soutenant les activités inventives au cours de chacune de ces périodes.
Il s'agira notamment d'un réseau d'inventeurs tel que le « Lunar society » à la fin du 18ème
siècle en Grande-Bretagne (Chapitre 1); des hiérarchies inventives en vigueur dans
l'industrie du rail à la fin du 19ème siècle aux Etats-Unis (Chapitre 2) et de la « main souple du
management » (superposition de réseaux et de hiérarchies) dans les laboratoires de
recherche tels que celui de la General Electric aux Etats-Unis au début du 20ème siècle
(Chapitre 3).
Cette analyse révèlera le rôle du triptyque A-E-P au sein des actions collectives. Nous
décrirons chaque régime au moyen de ces trois facultés, ce qui permettra de faire le lien
entre comportements individuels et arrangements collectifs, et nous aidera à comprendre
comment les arrangements collectifs peuvent favoriser mais également limiter les actions
humaines.
Nous décrirons différents « régimes d'invention » afin de comparer les pratiques inventives
adoptées par des groupes d'agents. Un régime d'invention est un ensemble cohérent de
pratiques inventives employées par un groupe d'individus à un point donné dans le temps et
dans une situation précise. Il ne s’agit pas de décrire les actions d’un individu mais celles d’un
groupe de personnes.
Nous ne dégagerons pas une recette du succès, mais un ensemble de pratiques. Les régimes
d'invention sont ici une description organisée de la réalité au moyen du triptyque A-E-P qui
guide cette analyse. Le cas échéant, les régimes d'invention seront considérés comme des
cas particuliers incarnant les principales caractéristiques d'un cas courant, un « idéal type ».
Il ne faut pas confondre la notion d’idéal-type avec celle de vérité générale, telle une loi qui
pourrait être appliquée, par exemple, pour comprendre comment se déroule l'Histoire. Un
idéal-type est une description abstraite d'un ensemble de pratiques et de leur contexte qui
pouvant s’appliquer à une diversité de situations similaires. Un tel « régime d'invention » qui
48
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

peut représenter une diversité de pratiques et de situations quotidiennes sera donc appelé
ici : « arrangement collectif ». En d'autres termes, en décrivant les régimes d’invention nous
avons l'intention d’identifier des modèles récurrents décrivant la manière dont les individus
travaillent ensemble pour inventer.
D/3 Analyse de certaines transformations institutionnelles ayant eu un impact
sur les hiérarchies inventives au cours des trois périodes étudiées.
Il s’agira, notamment, de la généralisation de la passion populaire pour l'Expérimentation à la
fin du 18ème siècle (Chapitre 1), de la transformation des régimes d’invention dans l'industrie
du rail à la fin du 19ème siècle aux Etats-Unis (Chapitre 2); et de l’essor de la recherche
fondamentale menée par l'industrie au cours du 20ème siècle, ainsi que ses limites (Chapitre
3).
Cette étude se penchera sur la continuité des faits historiques au cours d'une période
donnée. Elle mettra en lumière la succession de pratiques relatives à des cas spécifiques
largement débattus afin de comprendre l’origine des « points de basculement » (tipping points).
Nous nous pencherons sur la cohérence dans le temps entre ce qui est dit et ce qui est fait.
Certains facteurs institutionnels seront pris en compte afin d’étudier la façon dont l'histoire
économique des organisations prend en compte le temps et l’Histoire.
L'apparition de nouveaux arrangements collectifs ou le passage d'un arrangement collectif à
un autre sera traité dans le présent travail en tant que transformation institutionnelle. Là
encore, notre intention n'est pas de rechercher leurs causes historiques sous-jacentes, mais
de se pencher sur les « points de basculement » (tipping points). Nous étudierons comment,
au cours d’une période de temps donnée, certaines pratiques inventives spécifiques ont
évolué, comment elles se sont succédées, comment elles ont créé de nouveaux contextes,
comment elles ont parfois été en contradiction avec leur intention initiale et ont donc
permis à une large gamme de pratiques de voir le jour.
L’Histoire récente ne sera pas prise en compte ici, tout d’abord par prudence, les historiens
n’ayant pas encore distillé leur pouvoir analytique pour comprendre cette période. Il est
49
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

nécessaire d’avoir un certain recul pour pouvoir se pencher sur notre époque de la même
manière que pour les trois autres. La crête de la connaissance a indubitablement progressé,
de nouvelles idées, de nouveaux outils, de nouveaux problèmes et de nouvelles pratiques
ont vu le jour mais nous espérons que celles-ci pourront toujours être interprétées au
moyen de l'approche développée dans notre étude.
Notre procéderons à l’étude successive des trois « Ages » (l’ «Age des machines », l' « Age
des systèmes » et l’ « Age de la science prédictive»). Les trois inventeurs de carrière, les
arrangements collectifs et les transformations institutionnelles seront examinés dans cet
ordre pour chacune de ces périodes. Nous établirons ensuite un tableau/taxonomie qui
présentera les trois facultés des inventeurs en fonction de différents « degrés »
d'incertitude, et un autre tableau qui présentera une large gamme de régimes collectifs
soutenant les activités inventives selon ces trois niveaux d'incertitude. D’autres axes de
recherche prometteurs seront enfin proposés.
50
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Part 1. Inventing during the late 18th century in
Britain
Preliminary Chapter - Overview of the late 18th century
The high middle age was a period when many inventions were brought to life in different
activities such as building, shipbuilding, metallurgy, textile and the military arts. Hydraulic
energy was widely used. Human labour started to be replaced by machines, such as the
watermill and windmill (Mokyr, 1990). Later on, the population saw bright and dark periods
alternating. Periods of economic progress and social stability stimulated demography and
inventive activities, periods marked by war, plagues and demographic deficit did not bring as
many inventions to life (Gilles, 1978). During the Renaissance, most inventions continued to
be the work of craftsmen. Their workshops were a source of inspiration for the people who
transformed the practice of sciences and invented the experimental method. In Italy, Galileo
used to observe extensively the people working in the arsenal of Venice. In England,
Gilbert 19, one of the physicians of Queen Elizabeth I, investigated the properties of
lodestones that could move other stones containing iron. During the late 16th century, the
French potter Bernard Palissy 20 tried to apply the experimental method to inventive
activities in order to make an Italian style enamel (Fayence). The work of the potter involves
combining together a number of parameters: the quality of the clay, the pot’s thickness, the
melting point, quality and colours of the enamel, the level and consistency of the fire, and
the pot position in the kiln. Epstein commented: ‘(i)t is all very well to define the ‘scientific
method’ as ‘accurate measurement, controlled experiment, and an insistence on reproducibility’. As
Palissy noted, the problem with this ideal, to which in principle he subscribed, was to know what to
measure and experiment with’ (Epstein; 2005). Moving from trial and error to more
predictable forms of Experimentation was difficult. Many inventors tinkered in their
workshop. Some could see the value of a more systematic approach to Experimentation,
19
Gilbert (1544-1603) pioneered research on magnetism. He became the most distinguished man of science in
England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.
20
Palissy (1509-1590), potter and writer, was a pioneer of the experimental method.
51
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

like Bernard Palissy. However, they often lacked the required instruments and knowledge to
progress in this direction. Prior to the 18th century, technical information circulated slowly,
few books were available but it was mainly the circulation of people and goods themselves
(Mokyr, 1990) that supported the diffusion of technical information.
The first historical period studied in this dissertation investigates inventive activities during
the late 18th century in Britain. This period is commonly called the ‘industrial revolution’ even
though the validity of the word ‘revolution’ can be questioned (Landes, 1999), as it spreads
over 60 years and as the Growth Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita did not progress at a
rapid rate. Nevertheless, it was the period when inventive activities, measured by the
number of patents filed, started to ramp up (McLeod, 1989). It was a time spearheaded by
inventors who started to transform the economic system from a cottage industry towards a
factory system. Machinery appeared and replaced human labour, especially in the textile
industry. Machine tools spread across industries. Natural energies were slowly replaced by
steam power. This period can be described as ‘the age of the machines 21’.
The development of machines stimulated the discovery and use of a large diversity of
mechanisms and materials that could be re-used and combined together to create new
applications. The number of mechanisms available grew rapidly in numbers, quality and
precision, as machines became bigger, more robust and more volatile in their applications.
Only 70 years separate the flying shuttle (1733) of John Kay 22 from the Trevithick 23
locomotive (1803). Thanks to progress of the machine tools, machines started to construct
new machines. All these machines were not a product of science but the result of the
curiosity, the entrepreneurial spirit and the technical mastery of inventors.
21
Undoubtedly, this is a restrictive appellation as, for instance, some chemical reactions also started to be
mastered. Nevertheless, the machine is probably the most emblematic innovation of this period.
22
John Kay (1704-1764) was an English machinist and engineer, inventor of the flying shuttle, which was an
important step toward automatic weaving. Woollen manufacturers in Yorkshire were quick to adopt the new
invention, but they organised a protective club to avoid paying Kay a royalty. After he lost most of his money in
litigation to protect his patent, Kay moved to France, where he is said to have died in obscurity.
23
Trevithick (1771-1863) was an English mechanical engineer and inventor who successfully harnessed high-
pressure steam and constructed the world’s first steam railway locomotive.
52
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The first chapter studies three career inventors to investigate the role of the Attentiveness-
Experimentation-Persuasion triptych in the context of the intensification of inventive
activities: Arkwright, who was the leading figure of the transformation of the textile industry
(Chapter I, Section I), Wedgwood, who brought many changes to the pottery industry
(Chapter I, Section II) and Watt, who developed a steam engine that was used for
multiple applications (Chapter I, Section III). These inventors were not fully dedicated to
inventive activities; they were also entrepreneurs, managers and held other professional
occupations. They were attentive to technical and social changes that were happening in
Britain and across Europe. They moved beyond trial and error to organise what could be
described as ‘organised experiments’. They relied on family, friendship and business relations
to advance and promote the result of their inventive work.
Arkwright was chosen for his role in the transformation of the textile industry where he
seized a number of technical and business opportunities. He combined existing mechanisms
to create the water frame and the carding machine, two important inventions that
engendered significant productivity increase for the industry. He established some of the
first modern factories and contributed to revolutionise working practices in the British
cottage industry.
Wedgwood was a master experimenter who built his own laboratory, separate from the
production line. He was chosen because he understood and served the needs of the rising
wealthy class that aspired to more luxurious goods. He created modern showrooms and
used his association with the queens and kings of the world to grab their attention.
Watt is the emblematic career inventor of the late 18th century. He is most famous for
bringing to life a new steam engine that became a commercial success. He pursued many
other inventions with success. The development of his steam engine required from him the
investigation of natural phenomena through experiments before he could scale up his
concept step by step.
The second chapter (Chapter II) is dedicated to the study of a collective arrangement that
brought together people who shared a common passion for Experimentation, scientific
investigations and inventive activities. The role of networks in inventive activities has been
53
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

highlighted by a number of scholars over the years. We will suggest here that the A-E-P
triptych helps to characterise and explain the role of such networks. A network will be
understood as sets of relationships that help individuals face uncertainty. Inventors form
networks to share and gather useful information. It will be done by investigating a specific
network that was active in the region of Birmingham in England during the late 18th century:
the Lunar Society. Wedgwood and Watt were actively involved in this informal group and
Arkwright came in contact with some of its members.
The third part (Chapter III) investigates an institutional transformation that led to the
intensification of inventive activities as measured by the evolution of the number of patents
filed. Institutional economics suggest that institutional arrangements can impact the
economic evolution of a region, country or group of countries. North (1990) studied, for
instance, the structures of incentives related to property rights that encouraged innovation
and private entrepreneurships. Experimentation became a passion of people from all walks
of life. It was entertaining, educational and it inspired optimism. New sets of norms,
incentives, and organisational structures developed. Economic agents developed a
preference for occupations and investments that involved pursuing experiments and
inventive activities. The widespread interest for balloons and natural phenomena such as
electricity will be explored before looking at how Experimentation became a common
denominator to many social fields such as art, religion, education and politics.
However, before moving to the study of the three career inventors, some elements of
context that impacted inventive activities during the late 18th century in Britain need to be
presented. Three salient facts are encountered throughout this study: (1) the evolution of
the economic practices; (2) the transformation of the textile industry especially in the North
of England; (3) the development of societies and networks interested in science, philosophy
and political matters.
(1) The late 18th century in Britain was a time of intense changes across all social practices.
Local markets had already developed and multiplied over the 16th and the 17th
centuries. During the late 18th century, new shops opened in towns and local markets
saw the development of an intense social life. New professions emerged; the division
54
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

of labour was not solely applicable to manufacturing. Courtiers, salesmen, merchants
and other agents of commerce developed (Braudel, 1979). However, Britain at that
time was still like the rest of the Europe: a rural world where people tended to live all
their lives were they were born. Canals and the introduction of new roads modified
the transportation system and contributed to the expansion of human exchanges. A
middle class of industrialists rose. It was happening at a time when the nature of
economic demand was altered and human desires started to shape the functioning of
the economic system. Working class did not benefit from those transformations. Child
labour was common. Hygiene and safety conditions were poor. Moreover, people had
to face rapid changes in the pattern of work. This led to revolts.
(2) The textile industry and its transformation at the end of the 18th century in Britain are
emblematic of the so-called ‘industrial revolution’ (Toynbee, 1884). In 1760, Manchester
had a population of 17, 000 people compared to 500, 000 for London. The cotton
industry was barely noticeable at that time, linen and wool were the main raw
materials used in textile. The value of exported cotton goods grew from £ 0.2 M in
1754 to £ 5.4 M in 1800. By the 1830’s, cotton represented 20% of British imports,
and cotton goods amounted to 50% of the exports. In 1830, Manchester had grown to
180,000 people and, by 1850, it was producing 40% of the world cotton textile
production. In the meantime, other traditional textile production areas, such as the
regions of Worcester and Norwich, stagnated in terms of population. Cotton goods
production grew, as the price of cotton goods fell dramatically. The production of
cotton goods in Britain was competitive, even compared to countries like India, where
wages were one sixth of the British ones. The cost of manufacturing one pound of
cotton yarn in 1784 was equivalent to one week’s wage for an unskilled manual
labourer. By 1832, it was equivalent to less than three hours wages. This drastic fall
was due to a number of technical innovations that led to the development of a new
system of production. At the start of the 17th century, the textile industry was a
domestic one. Women spun the yarn on a spinning wheel and men wove it on looms
in sheds. It was a human powered industry. The invention of the flying shuttle by John
55
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Kay (1733), the spinning jenny by James Hargreaves 24 (1769), the water frame by
Arkwright (1769), the mule by Samuel Crompton 25 (1779) and the power loom, by
Edmund Cartwright 26 (1785) automated the production and transformed the industry.
Factories replaced the domestic system of production. Water and then steam were
used to power the industry.
(3) The late 18th century in Britain saw the rise of an increased complexity of urban life,
commerce and techniques. At the same time, the transport network was expanding
and newspapers multiplied. These trends supported the developments of formal and
informal academies, clubs and societies that offered people opportunities to learn
(Schofield, 1963). An eloquent observer of his time, Doctor Jonhnson, talked of his
contemporaries as ‘clubbable men’. At the beginning of the 18th century, only two
formal scientific societies existed in England: the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal
Society. The first one was elitist as it only accepted fellows from Oxford and
Cambridge and the second one was not interested in practical concerns. The Society of
Arts was established in 1754 to promote practical improvements and encourage local
arts. The development of industry in some regions of Britain encouraged people to
establish their own local clubs and societies. In a city like Birmingham, it meant book
clubs and societies, such as the Birmingham Sunday Society that organised lectures on
scientific or technical topics like chemistry, physics, optics, electricity, mechanics and
astronomy. Lectures on non-technical issues were less common at that time in
Birmingham but they included philosophy, morals, and history. Another society was
formed in 1796. It was known as the Brotherly Society and included reading, writing,
arithmetic, drawing, geography, natural and civil history, and morals on its list of topics.
It later became the first mechanics' Institute in Britain. A number of debating societies
also existed. They were called the Robin Hood Free Debating Society or the Amicable
Debating Society. They addressed philosophical and political questions.
24
James Hargreaves (?-1770) was an English inventor of the spinning jenny, the first practical application of
multiple spinning by a machine.
25
Samuel Crompton (1753-1827) wan a British inventor of the spinning mule, which permitted large-scale
manufacture of high-quality thread and yarn.
26
Edmund Cartwright (1743-1823) was an English inventor of the first wool-combing machine and of the
predecessor of the modern power loom.
56
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter 1- Career inventors and the three abilities
Section 1. Richard Arkwright
Richard Arkwright was born in Preston, England in December 1732. He was a career
inventor who dedicated his inventive and entrepreneurial efforts to the textile industry. He
developed the water frame, the carding machine and mechanised textile production. He
replaced human power by other sources of energy, such as water and steam, and
spearheaded the transformation of the cotton industry from small-scale cottage craft to
large scale factory production. He developed the factory system with his Cromford Mill by
employing hundreds of people in the same place.
Richard Arkwright was from a working class family and the youngest of thirteen children. He
received a basic education. He was trained as a barber and started as an apprentice in
Kirkham. After moving to Bolton, he opened his own barber shop and enjoyed a
commercial success. He used to debate mechanical issues with his customers. He had a
mechanical clock on the shelves of his shop, he liked to tinker with it. On his trade card, it
read: ‘Rich Arkwright – Peruque maker – hair cutter in Bolton, Lancashire – in the neatest and best
Fashion’ (Hills, 1973)
Arkwright married his first wife, Patience Holt, in 1755. In 1756, she died of unspecified
causes. Arkwright later married Margaret Biggins in 1761.
By the time he was 30, Richard Arkwright started to buy and sell hair to be used in wigs, a
fashionable product of the time. He therefore travelled extensively around the country. He
came into possession or invented a secret way of dying hair, which enabled him to sell to
other wigs-maker (Guest, 1823). However, as fashion changed and the demand for wigs
vanished, he had to find another occupation.
57
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

By 1767, a machine for carding cotton had been introduced in England. Arkwright developed
the water frame thanks to the help of John Kay, a clockmaker. It was used to spin cotton
and was able to do the handwork of spinners. It used rollers to guide the yarn and was run
by horse power or water power. It helped the manufacture of hard yarn suitable for
weaving. The spinning Jenny invented by James Hargreaves produced the weaker yarns.
In 1750, Arkwright was established as a manufacturer. The water frame was improved over
the following years. The first water frames were powered by horses, Arkwright established
a first water powered mill in 1771, in Cromford. The investment was significant, it
amounted to £12,000. It was capable of producing night and day, six days a week, using a
shift system. Arkwright also created Masson Mill in 1783.
Following a number of subsequent inventions, Arkwright took a second patent in 1775 on
the full carding process. By 1780, with his partners, he had set up six mills using the water
frame. He expanded his activities throughout the country and in Scotland. His fortune was
made. In 1781, he prosecuted competitors for breach of his patents. His second patent was
challenged in a trial by manufacturers from the region of Lancashire. He lost the case as his
patent lacked accuracy in the description of the invention. In 1782, he estimated his
workforce at more than 5,000 people. In 1785, the verdict of the first trial was reversed.
Another trial was initiated during which his inventions were challenged by Thomas Highs
who claimed the original use of rollers for spinning and the widow of James Hargreaves,
another inventor in the textile industry. Arkwright lost it but he had already made a fortune
from his own exploitation of his inventions.
In 1786, he was knighted by King George III and he was made High Sheriff of Derbyshire. In
1792, he died of asthma at the age of 60.
This chapter will start by looking at how Arkwright, by listening to the people he met
throughout his travels and as part of his business activities, became an attentive inventor and
entrepreneur (A/ Attentiveness: listening to people). Arkwright was a perceptive
entrepreneur who recognised the business opportunities he encountered. He was also a
conscientious inventor who capitalised on existing discoveries to create his own machines.
58
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Arkwright appears as a talented mechanic capable of experimenting using an arduous
tinkering process. Arkwright was able to get the different part of his machines to work
together. Individually, none of them was an innovation but, together, they changed the face
of the textile industry (B/ Experimentation: tinkering for success).
To conclude, Arkwright will appear as a restless persuader. He convinced investors to trust
him, lobbied the government with success and developed a loyal workforce during troubled
times. He used his glibness to self-fashion himself and seek public recognition (C/
Persuasion: glibness and self fashioning).
A. Attentiveness: listening to people
Richard Arkwright was someone attentive to the rumours, discussions and issues that
surrounded mechanical developments in the textile industry. Being an astute entrepreneur,
he was also very alert to business opportunities. Industrial secrets did not remain secrets
for long at that time and Richard Arkwright was able to recognise a promising idea when he
heard about or saw one.
Many hypothesis and stories have circulated about Richard Arkwright’s initial interest in
spinning (Fitton, 1989). One hypothesis was that he studied Lombe’s silk mill 27. A different
proposition suggested that he accidentally purchased a spinning jenny. Less credible stories
said that his interest rose when working on perpetual motion or that he heard in his barber
shop a sailor talking about an incredible Chinese machine.
In his barber shop, he often engaged in conversations about mechanical issues. He heard
weavers complaining about the lack of yarn and many stories about recent inventions in
spinning. It was a common topic of discussion at that time, as it was difficult for the spinners
to fulfil the demand (Hills, 1973). As he travelled around the country for his wig business, he
met many people in markets and inns, with whom he talked about the current mechanical
27
Lombe is often refered to as an ‘industrial spy’. He discovered the silk throwing machine in Italy before
building his mill in Britain.
59
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

developments. It is apparent from the hearings of his second trial in connection with his
patents.
During his travels, he met Kay, a clockmaker from Warrington, who told him that he had
made a model of a spinning machine for Thomas Highs, a reed maker from Leigh. Highs,
with the help of Kay, had tried to build a spinning machine. They faced months of failed
attempts. Highs, nevertheless, went back to his garret and succeeded in building a spinning
jenny in 1764. Later, he again used the skills of Kay and they worked together on a machine
for spinning cottons that used rollers. Highs made significant progress in that direction but
he did not manage to refine the process.
The first encounter between Arkwright and Kay occurred in 1767. They worked together
again in Warrington, when Kay had returned there. Arkwright asked him to make a wooden
model of this machine. It was the first step that led to the development of the water frame.
Later, his choice of the region of Nottingham to settle his business shows that he had
understood that manufacturers in this region were dependent on the yarn manufacturers
from Lancashire. He saw this as a market opportunity. He also certainly realised that many
skilled mechanics were available in this region, of whom he could make good use. His
interest for different sources of energy is very indicative of his Attentiveness to technical
matters. The use of water power might have been an obvious solution to the limitation that
Arkwright met with his first water frames powered by horses. In many places at that time,
investments were made with the aim of exploiting the energy of running water. At the
beginning of the 18th century, it was used in silk mills by entrepreneurs like Lombe. One of
the partners of Arkwright, Strutt, was certainly well aware of this as his business included
the manufacture of silk in Derby. The chronology of the use of Newcomen28 and Watt
engines with separate condensers in the cotton industry somehow lacks clarity. It appears
that the first Boulton and Watt steam engine used in a cotton mill was operational at
Papplewick by the Robinsons in 1786 (Fitton, 1989). However, Arkwright tried to install and
28
Thomas Newcomen (1663-1729) was a British engineer and inventor of the atmospheric steam engine. The
first Newcomen engine was erected in Staffordshire in 1712. Newcomen’s engine was used in the draining of
mines and in raising water to power waterwheels.
60
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

use a Newcomen engine that could provide rotary power as early as 1782. By October
1783, he abandoned his efforts as they were proving unsuccessful. He ended up using the
engine to replenish the reservoir by pumping back water that had passed the watershed.
Throughout his legal cases, Arkwright showed that he knew how to pay attention to the
slightest details. The second patent of Arkwright was first challenged on the basis that the
description of his invention was incomplete and obscure. Having lost his rights, Arkwright
fought back by running a systematic search for evidence to support his position. He and his
partners made enquiries about previous inventors, like Kay and Hargreaves. They started to
consult many people: attorneys, a prominent draughtsman master of an academy, natural
philosophers, such as Erasmus Darwin 29 and Samuel More, inventors and mechanics, such as
Watt and Wilkinson 30, manufacturers and also Members of Parliament. All those efforts paid
off and Arkwright’s patent was re-instated.
The development of the factory system was not just the achievement of an inspired
entrepreneur. To develop a work place with over 1,000 people, close attention to the
problems that emerged was fundamental. Fitton (1989) described Arkwright as follows:
‘(A)lthough Arkwright’s career confirms the superiority of his instinct in business over rules, his was
an instinct supported by unremitting toil and a meticulous attention to details extending from the
highest policy decision to the personal supervision of the mills room’. The transformation of the
cottage industry and the development of factories worked to the disadvantage of workers
who saw their work disappearing. It led to a number of revolts. Richard Arkwright
understood that such revolts had a disastrous impact on the fortune of inventors.
Therefore, he installed his mills in areas where such revolts were less likely to happen and
implemented working conditions that were above the traditional standards of the time, to
install a positive attitude from his workforce. He also ensured that he could rapidly
improvise an army of 6,000 men, 1,000 guns and cannons if rioters approached his mills.
Indeed, he was never threatened by these movements.
29
Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) was a prominent English physician, grandfather of the naturalist Charles
Darwin and the biologist Francis Galton.
30
John Wilkinson (1728-1808) was a British industrialist known as ‘the great Staffordshire ironmaster’ who
found new applications for iron and who devised a boring machine essential to the success of James Watt’s
steam engine.
61
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. Experimentation: tinkering for success
Experimentation, in the case of the water frame, the first machine patented by Arkwright,
meant tinkering and trying to bring all the pieces to work properly together. As mentioned,
Arkwright asked John Kay to make a model of the machine he and Thomas High worked on.
This machine used rollers to draw out the fibres of cotton. The model of Kay was a working
prototype. It allowed playing and experimenting with the basic principles of the machine.
However, the development required the construction of a full scale machine that Arkwright
could then fine tune. Arkwright’s inventions were performed with the help of smiths,
clockmakers and frame-makers.
There are very limited accounts of the invention of the water frame (Hills, 1980). However
the trials where the rights of Arkwright were challenged provide interesting information
that can help to reconstruct the nature of the experiments he performed.
The challenge in court was motivated by an alleged absence of innovation which could lead
to a misunderstanding of the technical achievements of Arkwright. By looking at the
originality of each separate elements of his invention, Arkwright might appear as someone
who assembled together sets of existing discoveries, without bringing anything new. This is
misleading as getting the whole system to work together is usually the most challenging
exercise in the development of a machine.
During the trial, the ten parts that appeared in the patent were examined. Five of them
were useless and they were presented as ‘mischievous’ (Fitton, 1989). It included the
beating hammer, which could have served to beat hemp but was useless for cotton. The
role of the feeder was debated, as it was proved that such feeders had been used prior to
Arkwright’s invention. The crank 31 that served to take the carded cotton into continuous
sheet was also presented as being a device that had been used previously. The widow of
Hargreaves testified that her husband had used such a crank and that it had been developed
in 1772, in collaboration with George Whitaker, a smith and frame maker. The fillet cards
31
In mechanics, important motion-transmitting device. It converts linear to rotary motion, and vice versa.
62
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

enabled the cylinder to give off the cotton in a continuous fleece. Robert Pilkington testified
that he made one with Richard Livesay in 1770 and that it had been used in the presence of
Arkwright prior to his invention. The revolving can was said to have been used as early as
1759. It also appeared that two former workmen of Arkwright had made one for Neddy
Holt in 1774. Thomas Highs and John Kay also testified. Critical aspects of the two patents
of Arkwright were at stake. Highs affirmed that he had made rollers himself in 1767 and
that, in 1769, he had designed one similar to the one currently used by Arkwright. Highs
mentioned a conversation he had with Arkwright in 1771 during which he had mentioned
the model made for him by Kay. It was confirmed by Kay that use of rollers in such
circumstances was an idea of Highs.
Mr. Serjeant Adair, who was in charge of the defence of Arkwright, said that ‘the more
important part of the mechanical powers have been discovered, rather than invented, many
centuries ago, many thousands years ago (…) this is a new invention in a machine, which consists
of a new combination of old parts’ (Fitton, 1989). Adair advanced the idea that the one who
brings an invention to a certain degree of maturity is the one who is entitled to a patent.
This confirms that Arkwright was as an attentive inventor who was able to see how
previous ideas, improvements and inventions could be brought together to form a new
machine. As mentioned before, looking at each piece one by one is misleading. The
originality of Arkwright’s machine compared to existing ones rested in the correct spacing
of the rollers and their weighting (Hill, 1973; Fitton, 1989). Arkwright recognised the
importance of the distance between the pairs of rollers to avoid gripping both ends of the
same cotton fibre, if they were too close and gripping any cotton fibres at all or if they were
too far apart. He also weighted the top rollers so that they pressed firmly against the lower
counterparts to help hold the fibres tightly in the nip of the rollers. Finding the right distance
and the right weight required trial and error guided by some simple measurement distance
in the first case and weight in the second.
This fine tuning of the water frame is not the only proof that Arkrwright was a talented
mechanics who could turn experiments into achievements. In order to bring the carding
machine to life, Arkwright improved, one after the other, the different steps of the spinning
and carding process. As Fisk (1998) commented on the achievement of Arkwright: ‘the whole
63
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

process of yarn manufacture, including carding, drawing, rolling and spinning, was now performed
by a beautifully arranged succession of operations on one machine.’ The improvement to the
spinning process turned the carding process into a bottleneck. The mechanisation of one
part of the process made the mechanisation of the other part necessary. One thing of great
importance was the possibility to improve on each steps independently and, then, to
connect them together. Bradshaw 32 (2005) alleged that dividing a problem in different parts
allows conducting easier and cheaper experiments. It limits the number of parameters to be
controlled and ease the interpretation of the outcome of experiments. In the case of
Arkwright, the different steps of the process were ‘naturally’ separated and the connections
and interfaces were basic. Therefore, it was possible for Arkwright to experiment and
improve on each of them separately and, then, bring all of them together.
Today, such developments appear as being simple mechanical issues. However, they were
great challenges at that time. According to Hill (1973), as Arkwright was facing his trials, he
claimed that ‘(M)any years intense study and painful application, and after a great variety of
experiments’ were needed to invent his machine.
C. Persuasion: self-fashioning and glibness
Richard Arkwright had a strong sense of how to best fashion himself. He claimed for
instance: ‘I can plainly prove, on the best of all authorities, that Noah was the founder of our
family, for he was undoubtedly the first Arkwright in the world’ (Fitton, 1989°) 33.
Richard Arkwright’s ability to persuade others to support him was demonstrated by his
ability to mobilise capital for his ambitious plans. He first persuaded two merchants, who
were distant relatives of his from Preston and Liverpool, John Smalley and David Thornley.
The family bond helped him to convince them to enter into this risky venture. The
partnership later included Need and Strut who had many connections in the textile industry.
32
Bradshaw studied the development of rockets by young people in the late 1950’s. He analysed the strategy
and tactics they used to experiment. He also studied the work of the Wright brother and suggested that
functional decomposition allowed them to meet success before their competitors.
33
Arkwright means the ‘builder of arks’ in old English.
64
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Need was a wealthy hosier in Nottingham. The other one, Strutt, was established in the
hosiery trade in Derby. They had made a significant profit together out of a patent on the
Derby rib machine and they were looking forward to exploiting new opportunities. Their
personal experience as inventors and entrepreneurs certainly helped Arkwright to persuade
them to support him 34.
Arkwright and his partners needed to persuade the government to change the law. Early in
the century, finished fabrics such as calicoes faced double excise duties and printed calicoes
were almost completely prohibited. In February 1774, Arkwright and his partners petitioned
the Parliament. Not accustomed to this exercise, they had to be patient. In May and June,
their petition was heard again and it was turned into a law without amendments. Arkwright
suggested that each piece of cloth made in Britain with cotton should be marked with three
blue threads at both ends of the piece. This would help to distinguish them from imported
ones. It was decided by the board of excise to add a stamp ‘British Manufactory’ to the
proposition of Arkwright.
Arkwright was somehow more successful than other inventors in the textile industry in
making money out of his patent, until it was challenged before the court. He certainly took
seriously the patenting process. However, he did not manage to enforce what he
considered to be his rights. His fortune was made from exploiting his own invention.
After the first challenge of his patent on the basis of the obscurity of the description of his
invention, he led a systematic effort to collect evidence that his patent should be considered
valid. To persuade his opponents, he said that he had kept the patent obscure to prevent his
invention to fall into the hands of foreigners. As we already outlined, he also secured the
support of natural philosophers, such as Erasmus Darwin or Samuel More who was the
Secretary of the Society of Arts. They could make a favourable impression during the trial.
34
The story of Arkwright is interestingly fully aligned with recent research on the funding of innovative
ventures. Information from the Global Enterprise Monitor has shown that informal sources of finance are larger
than formal ones (Mason, 2006). Informal sources comprise family money, sometimes called ‘love money’ and
individuals outside of the family called ‘business angels’. ‘Business angels’ are, or were often, successful
entrepreneurs. The importance of an informal source of finance shows that entrepreneurs get significant support
from the people who are ‘the easiest ones to convince’: their family and people who resemble and understand
them the most.
65
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Somehow contradicting himself, he found experienced and admired inventors who could
testify that they could have built the machine based on his description. Five witnesses also
testified that they had been able to build the machine based on the specifications. This
approach turned out to be a successful Persuasion tactic.
After Arkwright lost his rights on the carding machine on the basis that it was not a new
invention, Wedgwood visited him. Following their encounter, he pleaded for both
Arkwright and Watt to work together on making some proposals to improve the patent
system (Fitton, 1989): ‘you two great geniuses may probably strike out some new lights together,
which neither of you might think of separately.’ They, therefore, drew up the ‘Heads of a Bill’.
Even though it was not taken forward in the end, it is interesting to note the way inventors
could decide to use their powers of Persuasion not just to support their activities, but also
to influence the institutional rules and laws.
As mentioned before, Arkwright took good care of his employees in comparison to other
industrialists of the time. It allowed him to secure their loyalty, but also to prevent the
development of riots. He built rows of cottages for his workforce. He established a school
for children and banned child labour before the age of ten. No work was carried out on
Sundays to allow attendance at the churches and chapels built for the workers. Loans were
available for their families to buy a cow.
Clearly, Arkwright fashioned himself amongst his employees. Once a year, he held a festival.
In 1776, 500 workmen paraded around the village. Upon their return, they received ale and
buns, followed by a ball in the evening. In 1778, a song praising Arkwright was composed
and sung at the festival. It finished with:
‘To our noble Master, a Bumper then fill,
The matchless Inventor of the Cotton-Mill,
Each toss off his Glass with a hearty Good-Will,
With Huzza for the mills now at Cromford,
All join with a jovial Huzza.’
66
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In 1781, Syllas Neville, a medical doctor, commented that Arkwright ‘by his conduct, appears
to be a man of great understanding and to know the way of making his people do their best. He
not only distributes pecuniary rewards, but gives distinguishing dresses to the most deserving of both
sexes, which excites great emulation. He also gives two Balls at the Greyhound to the workmen and
their wives and families with a week’s jubilee at the time of each ball. This makes them industrious
and sober all the rest of the year’ (Hills, 1973).
67
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section II. Josiah Wedgwood
If Arkwright brought some lasting changes to the textile industry, Josiah Wedgwood (1730-
1789) led the transformation of the pottery industry. A visitor to the region of Burslem in
England reported that: ‘Innovation is running mad’ (Dolan, 2004). He could see a mix of
cooperation and competition between the local producers. New companies were appearing
through a burst of innovation. A spirit of open collaboration reigned in the region, even if
some tried to develop their invention within the secrecy of their laboratories.
During the first half of the 18th century, the pottery industry traditionally produced jugs,
porringers, baking dishes made of black or red ware. Cream coloured earthenware was
available during the mid 1740’s. Artisans mixed chemicals and monitored the temperature of
the kilns. They were backed up by throwers, modellers and packers. Fragile pottery was
very much at risks when travelling by road. Their market was essentially local. The
extraction of raw materials was done in mills powered by water or wind. Those natural
sources of power acted as a constraint on the development of the industry. Having the mill
close to the kiln offered some advantage, as the artisans could oversee the mix of raw
materials (Roberts, 2001). This situation changed as, during the second half of the 18th
century, a middle class developed. These people were living longer and had new needs. They
were seeking comfort and were eager to demonstrate their new social status. The career
inventor who answered those needs and was at the forefront of this transformation was
Josiah Wedgwood.
Wedgwood was born in 1730 in Burslem and was raised within a family of English
dissenters 35. A vein of clay had made this town a centre of production for bricks, tiles,
teapots and other products. Potters from Burslem served the whole country. They used
kilns in the shape of a cone. In the 1680’s, Robert Plot had described this town in his history
of Staffordshire: ‘the greatest pottery they have in this county is carried on in Burslem, where for
making their several sorts of pots they have as many different sorts of clay which they dig round
35
Any English Protestant who does not conform to the doctrines or practices of the established Church of
England.
68
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

about the town’ (Dolan, 2004). This area of North Staffordshire contained rare deposits of
clay. However, the potters of Burslem did not make much money before the generation of
Wedgwood because of a lack of entrepreneurship spirit and widely-spread alcoholism that
had brought poverty.
Wedgwood was from a poor family and lost his father when he was nine years old. He
attended school at the age of seven in Newcastle-under-Lyme but was rapidly sent to work
with his elder brother Thomas. He had to become an apprentice in 1744 with his brother
from which, due to special arrangements, he did not receive any money. The same year, he
also suffered smallpox which left him with an injured leg. His apprenticeship came to an end
in 1749. He, then, worked for Thomas Alder, a potter from whom he continued to learn
the trade. He went into partnership between 1754 and 1759 with a master potter, Thomas
Whieldon. Whieldon had developed the tortoiseshell ware that raised much interest across
the country.
In 1759, Wedgwood discovered a new green glaze that had the best effect. As Whieldon
was losing interest in his business, Wedgwood turned to his cousins to secure support in
order to start his own pot-works. He started at the Ivy House works where he produced
green glaze and later a yellow-orange one. The shapes he produced were cauliflower,
pineapple and melon allowing for defects to be somehow hidden in such odd shapes.
He started to sell cream coloured earthenware in 1761. He had an accident on his way to
Liverpool in 1762 and, during his recovery, he met Matthew Turner, a local doctor and
Thomas Bentley, an aristocrat who had both a great scientific curiosity and a knack for
political issues. They brought Wedgwood into contact with a diversity of people at the
forefront of ideas and concerns of the time, while offering him business opportunities. He
became a close friend and a business partner of Bentley. Bentley organised foreign trade for
Wedgwood, lived for some time with him and ended up representing their common
interests in London. The abundant correspondence between the two gives a good account
of the life of Josiah Wedgwood.
69
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In 1764, Wedgwood moved to a new factory: the ‘Brick house’ or ‘Bell Works’. By that time,
he was married to Sally Wedgwood, a distant cousin who supported him throughout their
life in his inventive and business activities. In the summer of 1765, he sold cream coloured
earthenware to Queen Charlotte. This was an important landmark in his business activity as,
at that time, the royalty set the fashions and the aristocrats followed. He created a line of
pottery for them called ‘Queensware’. In 1768, he developed another glaze, the black Basalt,
and opened a third showroom in London. His work was now very much in fashion with the
rising wealthy class of England. By 1768, he led the pottery industry in the world, selling all
over North America and Europe
Wedgwood realised the importance of canal transport. In 1766, he joined the Duke of
Bridgewater 36 and James Brindley 37
and played an important role in the construction of
Trent & Mersey Canal. In 1769, he and Bentley opened a new factory: ‘Etruria’. It was
outside of the town, with good working conditions compared to the ones in Burslem. The
canal ran in front of the factory. The canal contributed to reducing the costs for clay and
served to deliver the finished pottery avoiding the breakages encountered on the roads. The
factory had 278 workers in 1790 who worked according to a thorough division of labour.
The blue and white colour called ‘jasper’ was developed in 1775.
Wedgwood became a Unitarian and, like most of them, he was a political reformer. He
supported universal male suffrage and took a position against slavery.
Bentley died in 1780. In 1789, Wedgwood created the Portland vase, a replica of a blue and
white glass vase dating back to the first century BC. It is still regarded as one of his
masterpieces. He died that same year. His grandson was Charles Darwin.
This chapter will start by looking at how Josiah Wedgwood learned from history and how
he paid attention to aspirations of the aristocrats to serve them (A/ Attentiveness:
36
The Duke of Bridgewater (1739-1803) is considered as the founder of British inland navigation, The
Bridgewater canal was built from his estates at Worsley, where he owned mines, to the city of Manchester.
37
James Brindley (1716-1772), pioneer and canal builder, constructed the English canals of major economic
importance. After the Bridgewater canal, he led the developments of the Grand Trunk Canal.
70
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

learning from history and scouting in London). By paying attention to the recent local
history of his industry, he was able to take some valuable lessons for the conduct of his own
affairs (1). He developed friendships which helped him to keep abreast of recent
developments in terms of the market needs and technical developments. Wedgwood also
enjoyed scouting for new ideas in the streets and salons of London (2).
Wedgwood was a disciplined and tireless experimenter (B/ Experimentation:
Wedgwood’s modern laboratory). He established a laboratory in his kitchen outside of
the production line where he could pursue long series of experiments that helped him to
bring innovative products to the market.
To conclude, it will show how Wedgwood developed a loyal clientele amongst the rising
wealthy class of aristocrats. (C/ Persuasion: Royal Patronage). The patronage of
Wedgwood’s product by royal figures and his innovative sales and promotion techniques
show that Wedgwood was an astute businessman who pioneered some business practices
that are still used today.
A. Attentiveness: learning from History and scouting in London
1. Learning from history
Wedgwood was able to learn from the past and the local history of the pottery industry.
His two cousins, Long John and Thomas, were renowned potters. He talked to experienced
potters to understand the source of their success. He discovered how the white glazed
ware was discovered and diffused within the industry. This story impressed the young
Wedgwood and he learned lessons from them.
The white glazed ware had been brought to Burslem in 1698 by two Dutchmen: John Philip
and David Elers. They had moved to London two decades before, at the time when the
British started to adopt tea. The drink was favoured by ladies who started to meet in tea
shops. There, they admired the rose-coloured tea pots imported from China. The brothers
were amused by this, as, in their country, a manufacturer had already started to produce
copies of the pots for some time. They saw a business opportunity and decided to
71
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

investigate some improved ways of manufacturing teapots, which led them to Dwight, a
lawyer associated with the Royal Society. Dwight claimed that he had discovered ‘the mysteries
of the stone ware’ and he had taken two patents on the production of ‘an opacious red and
dark-coloured porcelain’ in imitation of the Chinese pots’ (Dolan, 2004). The two brothers
listened to Dwight at a meeting at the Royal Society during which he explained his chemical
experiments and his investigations of various types of clays. The Elers brothers moved to
North Staffordshire and rented a pot-work in 1698 close to Burslem. After some efforts
conducted with the utmost secrecy and isolation, they succeeded in manufacturing mat-red
coloured teapots through the addition of salt to the glaze. The accomplishments of the
brothers were reported in the journal of the Royal Society. Dwight became infuriated, as he
was certain that they had used his own discoveries and he filed a lawsuit against them.
However, it was too late as the secret had started to slip into other hands, including the
ones of Josiah Wedgwood’s family.
Dolan (2004) commented on the lessons that the young Josiah Wedgwood learned from
this episode of the history of pottery to which he paid the highest attention: ‘Josiah found
much that was instructive in the potters’ tale’. He saw how a potter could benefit most from
learning skills beyond those traditionally associated with a craft. The ‘art and mystery’ of
experimental chemistry, for instance, could produce remarkable results: trying to
understand the secrets of nature could reveal how melting salt under certain conditions
could form a special glaze or how grinding particular minerals could affect the colour of the
finished piece. Wedgwood learned that new techniques had been introduced to Burslem
through the Dutchmen because they had been anxious to harness a burgeoning London
market. He also saw how through espionage, rivalling that of the Elers brothers, his cousins
had profited from the stealing of secrets. All his life, Wedgwood preferred secrecy to patent
in order to keep ahead of the competition, as he was attentive to what had occurred in his
industry, he took such informed decisions in order to steer his progress through a period of
intense innovation.
Throughout his life, Wedgwood met with people who remained his friends and who played
an important role in bringing novelties to his attention, such as Bentley, Turner and
72
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Priestley. Meeting Matthew Turner and Thomas Bentley 38 had a profound impact on the life
and work of Josiah Wedgwood. Wedgwood developed these acquaintances after he fell
from his horse. His convalescence had to take place in Liverpool under the supervision of
Matthew Turner, a local surgeon. As he and Turner discussed about the location where the
potter fell, the surgeon said that he was giving lessons of chemistry nearby at the
Warrington Academy, an institution dedicated to the ‘education of dissenters and young
laymen’ (Dolan, 2004). Talks about the injured leg stopped and was replaced by inquiries
into the activities of this academy and, more specifically, on the ones related to the teaching
of chemistry and to the education of people. Matthew Turner then introduced Josiah
Wedgwood to Thomas Bentley, an aristocrat who became his business partner, and Joseph
Priestley who became a famous chemist and a friend of Wedgwood. Inspired by their
conversations, Wedgwood initiated some new experiments and had plans for new ones
even before his convalescence was over (Dolan, 2004). Upon his return to Burslem,
Wedgwood entered into correspondence with both Turner and Bentley. His
correspondence with Bentley turned to be a lifelong one 39. The friendship and business
acquaintances of Wedgwood brought him much more than moral support, they brought to
him the most advance knowledge, discoveries and ideas of the time. This will be further
illustrated with the study, in the second chapter, of the Lunar Society.
2. Scouting for ideas in London
For Wedgwood, his visits to London were an occasion to scout for ideas. His first visit to
London took place in 1764. It was to help with the petition to the Parliament in order to
build a new road. It was also an opportunity to see how fashion was developing, what sold
and what did not. Wedgwood could see emerging trends and new shapes that could be
imitated. During another visit, after the Queen of England gave him his patronage, he was
walking in Pall Mall and noticed what he called ‘large shoals of ladies’ seeking fashionable
entertainment. A new concept of showroom emerged in his mind from observing this scene
38
Turner and Wedgwood could have met in different circumstances as they had acquaintance in common, such
as the Reverend Willets (Dolan, 2004).
39 He wrote to him: ‘at other time I may call upon you for assistance to settle an opinion – or to help me form a
probable conjecture of things beyond our ken and sometimes I may want that valuable and most difficult office
of friendship, reproof’ (Dolan, 2004).
73
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

and from the discussions he had with aristocrats who visited his factory. He also took the
opportunity of his visits in London to find new employees and to engage with craftsmen:
enamellers, carvers, etc.
During his search for new premises to exhibit his work in London, Wedgwood met a
couple, the Halmintons, who had a passion for antiques. This was a rising interest amongst
wealthy aristocrats, who loved to tour Europe. The Halmintons were at the forefront of
such a group of people who were referred to as the ‘Virtuosi’. These encounters happened
after the archaeological sites of Herculaneum and Pompeii were discovered; it provoked the
curiosity of Wedgwood. To enhance his knowledge about this kind of art, Wedgwood
followed the advice from his friend Bentley and visited the British Museum and toured book
stores. He also met relatives of the Halmintons: the Cathcart, a couple passionate about
Etruscan antiques that would later play an important role in furthering the reputation of
Wedgwood, as they bought a service for the Empress of Russia, Catherine the Great, when
they became ambassadors in Russia. Etruscan antiques became a source of inspiration for
Wedgwood who now understood the appeal of the rich city-dwellers for such things. This
led him to name his factory Etruria and to create the Portland vase.
If Josiah Wedgwood was attentive to the latest trends in fashion, he was also alert to more
technical opportunities. He, for instance, bought clay from merchants coming from South
Carolina. He noticed that its quality was unusual as it was whiter than most clay and
remained as such even after being fired at high temperature. He consulted his friends who
had a good knowledge of chemistry, Joseph Priestley and James Watt, who assured him that
it lacked ‘phlogiston’ a substance which allowed other substances to burn. Josiah Wedgwood
asked Bentley to import such clay and they sent someone to America to oversee the
provision of Cherokee clay.
Wedgwood was always keen to adopt new techniques and he managed to keep an eye on
promising developments. For instance, he bought a book published in Paris ‘L’art de tourner’
which brought to his attention potential improvements to his operations. In 1763, he
therefore introduced an engine turning lathe that was acquired thanks to the help of some
of his friends. He later made some significant modifications to it in order to use it to its full
74
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

potential (Roberts, 2001). He recognised that the Elers brothers were the first to introduce
a lathe for pottery work but he claimed to be the first to introduce eccentric motion lathes.
In 1775, Wedgwood and Turner travelled to Cornwall where they saw the Newcomen
engines in actions in the tin mines. Upon their return, Wedgwood bought a book describing
those machines and Turner bought a Newcomen engine. Wedgwood experimented with a
horizontal windmill together with Erasmus Darwin, but it was later abandoned in favour of a
steam engine. Indeed, Wedgwood bought engines from Boulton and Watt, in 1782 and
1784. These were the first two engines of this kind installed in Staffordshire (Roberts, 2001).
They were used to grind flint and enamel, to operate a stamper or a crusher for saggars and
to temper mix clays. This eased the preparatory work within the factory and supported
mechanisation.
The curiosity of Wedgwood helped him extensively to further his business activities. It also
helped him to achieve technical prowess as it infused in him a passion for experimental
investigations.
B. Experimentation: Wedgwood’s experimental laboratory
Even though he received a very basic education, Wedgwood turned into a skilled
experimenter. Experimentation was more than a means to an end in the conduct of his
affairs, it became a way of life for him.
As part of his pottery work, Wedgwood turned his kitchen into a laboratory.
Experimentation costs could therefore be significantly reduced by having research taking
place outside of the production flow. He developed a systematic and coded way of
recording his experiments in a notebook. He adopted a trial and error approach but a
systematic one, where he changed parameters little by little. Later in his life, he developed a
method to measure high temperatures, which brought further precision to his experimental
work.
75
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In 1744, after Wedgwood had contracted smallpox and recovered from it, his leg remained
damaged. The work of the potter required the use of two legs: one to anchor the body, the
other to operate the kick-wheel. It encouraged him to experiment with other parts of the
work relating to preparing clay, forming pieces and firing. In 1768, he decided that his leg
should be amputated, a daring decision as no anaesthetic existed.
Before Josiah, Long John, his cousin, had started to experiment with new approaches to
pottery making. In a book named ‘Essay on Pottery’ written in 1743, he explained that
‘(P)otmaking chiefly depends on a knowledge of ye nature of Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Clays, Marls,
and some Stones, and some Minerals’. He went on ‘to try which proportion of each sort will work
kindly together, Limestone, Alabaster and ye nature of them maybe tryd by several Experiments in
mixing with others, Chalks, red Earth, and other Coloured Earth fullers may be considered’ (Dolan,
2004). He also emphasised the importance of keeping records into such a pursuit.
The art of the potter can be best described as leaving mixtures of clay in the kiln for the
right time at the right temperature. New combinations could give a competitive edge to the
potter, as Wedgwood had learned from the story of the Elers brothers and of his cousins.
But experimenting remained expensive. He transformed his kitchen into a laboratory. He
started a notebook and wrote ‘Experiment Notebook I’ on the front of it. He had decided to
pursue long experimental investigations in order to find winning combinations. He started
mixing different proportions of chemicals and applied the resulting glaze to samples of
earthenware subsequently heated in an oven. He proceeded systematically, changing the
proportions of ingredients little by little. He took notes on each experiment with the
greatest minutiae. The type of experiments conducted by Wedgwood can be assimilated to
a trial and error approach. However, he started what could be described as ‘a laboratory for
inventive activities’ where he could pursue his research outside of the classic production flow.
It reduced costs and prevented jeopardizing the optimisation of the production process.
However, one factor that still affected the experiments of Josiah Wedgwood was the lack of
purity of the basic ingredients, such as clay.
On 23 March 1759, experiment 7 led him to write: ‘(T)his is the result of many experiments,
which I made in order to introduce a new species of colour’d ware to be fired along the tortoiseshell
76
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

and Agat ware in our common Gloss Ovens to be of an even self-colour, and laid upon the ware in
the form of a colour’d glaze’ (Dolan, 2004). The following day, he started the production of a
green glaze that surpassed all existing ones. He also started to label some teapots with his
initials, ‘JW’. After the discovery of the green glaze, he discovered a yellow-orange one. It
then took him until experiment 411 to make a major discovery. He labelled it: ‘A GOOD Wt.
GLAZE! The best of all these trials – uniform – transparent and nearly colourless’ (Dolan, 2004).
The development of the ’jaspers vase’ took about 5,000 recorded experiments (Roberts,
2001).
Josiah Wedgwood used a secret code to record his experiments in order to prevent his
‘attentive’ competitors from laying their hands on his secrets. It was a time when industrial
espionage was common place. Moreover, the story of Dwight and the Elers brothers had
taught Wedgwood that patents afforded only a limited protection effect for his trade.
During the age of the machine, Experimentation often lacked the required measurement
instruments. For instance, Wedgwood had no thermometer that could help him with the
monitoring of high temperature within the kiln. The cousin of Wedgwood, Long John, used
clay pellets to gauge the change of temperature through the change of their appearance.
Josiah Wedgwood therefore invented the pyrometer to measure temperature in kilns. He
was elected Fellow of the Royal Society for this invention in 1782.
C. Persuasion: Royal Patronages
Wedgwood wanted to ‘surprise the world with wonders’ 40 and he just did so. He understood
very well how a patronage with the most prominent people such as the Queen of England
could favour his business.
Josiah Wedgwood was an eloquent speaker who managed throughout his life to rally people
to his goals. For instance, he was a supporter and promoter of the turnpike roads, especially
the ones connecting his area to Liverpool or Chester. He understood that it was going to
40
Expression used by Wedgwood to describe his ambition when writing to his friend Bentley (Dolan, 2001).
77
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

help him to import clay and export potteries. In 1762, he made a vibrant public speech in
front at the Town Hall of Newcastle-under-Lyme to promote such roads. He highlighted the
importance of access to foreign markets and warned the crowd of the risks of competition.
He was helped off the stage, as he needed a crutch to walk, to a round of applause. The
turnpike Bill was approved by the Parliament in 1766 thanks to a number of connections
Wedgwood had established. This led him to travel for the first time in 1763 to London
following the advice of Bentley. Such an experience certainly reassured Wedgwood about
his ability to rally others when needed.
Securing some funding to start and grow a business is crucial and often demonstrates the
entrepreneur’s powers of Persuasion. Like many other inventors and entrepreneurs, Josiah
Wedgwood turned to ‘love money 41’ to do this. First, he convinced his cousins to lend him a
pot-works at the normal business rate. It was not enough to be just a relative, he was also
able to demonstrate his abilities to come up with inventive development, such as the green
glaze he had experimented with when working in the company of Whieldon. Marrying a
wealthy woman strongly benefited Wedgwood, as well as other entrepreneurs, at that time.
It was also the case, for instance, of Matthew Boulton, who married two sisters in turns and
used their family wealth to invest in different business activities. However, his wife was
much more to Josiah Wedgwood than a source of investment, as she also helped him with
experiments. She could be trusted about keeping the secrets in the house and not
disseminating them to competitors. Indeed, she was the first one to provide an opinion to
Josiah Wedgwood on his new products.
Wedgwood’s father-in-law was also conducting some banking business with a Member of
Parliament from Liverpool, Lord of the Admiralty, and a collector of prints, vase and antique
artefacts, called Meredith. He bought a set of tableware from Wedgwood. This was to be
embossed with his family coat of arms. Josiah promised to develop the most complete and
attractive service ever produced in Staffordshire. Meredith committed to recommending
Wedgwood to his acquaintances in London and the potter expressed his gratitude with
impressive verve: ‘(M)y heart is overflowing with sentiments of gratitude and thankfulness I am at
a loss where to begin my acknowledgements. Your goodness is leading me into improvements of the
41
See supra: footnote 34.
78
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

manufacture I am engaged in and patronising those improvements you have encouraged me to
attempt, demand my utmost attention. With such inducements to industry in my calling, if I do not
outstrip my fellows, it must be owing either to great want of genius, or application’ (Dolan, 2004).
Wedgwood was also a fervent supporter of James Brindley and his plans to develop canals.
Wedgwood was the treasurer of one of his grand works: the connection of the rivers Trent
and Mersey. The first meetings to support such development happened at the end of 1764.
The canal was finally opened in 1777. It was 93 miles long and included 76 locks, 269
aqueducts and bridges and a 2,880 yards long tunnel (Roberts, 2001). This canal passed in
front of Etruria, which provided Josiah Wedgwood with a convenient means of transport for
his business. In 1766, Wedgwood was involved in the first meeting that gathered the
promoters of this great piece of work. Wedgwood, that same year cut the first sod of earth
to open the construction of this canal.
Thanks to the promotion of the canal, Josiah Wedgwood met Gabett, a merchant and
chemist who shared his enthusiasm for the new navigation system. Gabett recommended
seeking the patronage of Lord Gower, a wealthy and influential landowner. After, they
decided to gain the patronage of the Duke of Bridgewater. After offering his support to the
canal work, the Duke ordered what Josiah Wedgwood reported as ‘the completest service of
table service in the cream colour that I could make’ (Dolan, 2004).
Soon after, an order for ‘a complete set of tea things’ with a gold flower upon it was placed
for Miss Deborah Chetwynd, Seamstress and Laundress to Queen Charlotte. He used up
quite some gold in experimenting to achieve the best effect for this order. However, he was
ready to do so in order to gain a prestigious patronage. The result was flamboyant and
immediately sparked rumours amongst the London aristocrats who rushed to place orders.
Wedgwood secured the permission to title the service he did for Queen Charlotte: the
‘Queen’s ware’ and was appointed as Her Majesty’s potter. He advertised it in papers. In
1769, he wrote to Bentley ‘(T)he demand for the Cream colour, alias Queen’s ware, alias Ivory
still increases – it is really amazing how rapidly the use of it has spread almost over the whole
Globe, and how universally it is liked – much of this general use and estimation is owing to the
mode of its introduction and how much to its real utility and beauty? ’(Roberts, 2001).
79
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Wedgwood was the first potter to mark his product with his name, signing the bottom of
each piece to establish his brand. He was also the first one to offer a money back guarantee,
and to offer free shipping. Wedgwood also sent out unsolicited pieces to the 700 top
aristocrats. The risk paid off as all of them but two subsequently bought from him.
The Empress Catherine of Russia ordered a now famous dinner and dessert service made of
952 pieces, each of them hand painted with scenery of a famous house or garden. She
received it in 1774. It was displayed in London and attracted many visitors. Wedgwood
encouraged ladies to visit his shops with friends. Wedgwood employed renowned designers
and architects to design new forms and patterns. He adopted, in 1771, the candlestick
design of Sir William Chambers, architect to King Georges III. Artists like John Flaxman,
Henry Webber and William Hacwood worked for him (Roberts, 2001). He recognised the
importance of fashion. He wrote to Bentley in 1779: ‘(F)ashion is infinitely superior to merit in
many respects’ (Roberts, 2001).
80
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section 3. James Watt
During the second part of the 18th century, James Watt, a Scotsman, came up with a series
of inventions. He invented a perspective drawing machines, one of the first micrometer and
a telemeter for civil engineers to measure distance. He designed cranes, drew up plans for
bridges and acted as a technical adviser in the pottery industry. He worked on new
bleaching processes for textiles and developed schemes for the production of alkali from
salt. He designed the first copy machine and another machines to replicate statues. He got
involved in debates on the possibilities and difficulties related to the invention of ‘faery
chariots’, now known as automobiles. But first and foremost, Watt is known for his crucial
contribution to the development of the steam engine, an invention that unlocked
remarkable opportunities in the mining, the manufacturing and the transportation industries,
to name the main ones. James Watt, was not the sole inventor of the steam engine 42 but he
brought radical improvement to it.
James Watt was the son of a ship builder and ship owner. He was born in 1736 in Cartsdyke
and raised in Greenock, where he went to the ordinary local school and the grammar
school. It was in London, in 1755 and 1756, that he was trained as an instrument maker. He
came back to Scotland and was appointed by the University of Glasgow as ‘Mathematical
instrument maker to the University‘ in 1757.
Watt maintained the instruments used for measurement and Experimentation at the
university. He supported professors who used them to perform demonstrations within their
class. This was an important role, as professors depended on the donation of the local
aristocrats to get their income. They therefore had to impress their students who were the
sons of those aristocrats and, sometimes, the aristocrats themselves.
The attention of Watt was caught by steam in 1758 when Robinson, one of his friends,
wanted to equip a wheel carriage with an engine. In 1761 and 1762, Watt experimented
42
Savery had already taken a patent on a steam engine in 1698 and Newcomen erected his first success full
engine to pump water from the mines in 1712. Watt perfected the design of the steam engine and turned it into a
widespread commercial application together with Matthew Boulton, the entrepreneur.
81
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

with a Papin digester. In 1763 and 1764, he tried to make a model of the Newcomen engine
work properly upon request of the university. He went much beyond this assignment and
ended up inventing the separate condenser to improve the efficiency of the steam engine in
1765 demonstrated by a model he built. The concept was great and simple but scaling up
the model engine turned out to be a daunting task.
James Watt started to supply people outside of the university and ended up in a partnership
with John Craig in 1759. It lasted six years and proved to be a commercial success. Watt
had the expertise and the contacts, Craig had the capital and knew how to keep the books.
Growth led them to recruit apprentices. Their reputation spread. Watt moved beyond
copying existing tools and started to invent new ones. The perspective machine was his first
achievement. As its name suggests it, it was meant to draw perspectives. They also
expanded their business into musical instruments. Craig died in 1765 and, subsequently,
Watt had to change the course of his career as he was lacking the capital to pursue his
trade.
Watt had married Margaret Millar in 1764 and had a family to support. After the death of
his business partner, he erected a Newcomen engine and then moved into civil engineering.
He surveyed canals, as the financial reward appeared greater there than in other fields. He
developed some surveying instruments to measure distances. Watt erected at Kinneil in
1768 a large steam engine of his own design. In 1769, he patented his engine with separate
condenser. Between 1765 and 1770, Watt’s steam work was financed by Roebuck, a captain
of industry who had a strong knack for technical innovation. They also collaborated on the
production of alkali from salt together with Black 43, a professor from Glasgow. Watt also
got involved in pottery work, he invested £477 in it in 1768 and acted as a technical adviser.
He brought improvement to the kiln design. This activity provided him with regular income.
Later, he advised Wedgwood on types of Cornish clays.
In 1770, the engine at Kinneil was not yet working properly. Roebuck faced financial
troubles in 1772. Due to his financial support from Watt, he owned two thirds of the patent
43
Joseph Black (1728-1799) was a British chemist and physicist best known for the rediscovery of ‘fixed air’
(carbon dioxide), the concept of latent heat, and the discovery of the bicarbonates.
82
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

rights. Matthew Boulton 44 an inventor and captain of industry from Birmingham, had already
offered Watt and Roebuck to buy back Roebuck’s participation in the steam engine.
However, Roebuck had decided that he wanted to remain a partner. With his financial
troubles, the situation changed and his rights were transferred to Boulton in order to settle
some of his debt. Watt’s wife died in 1773. Watt decided to move to Birmingham to pursue
his work.
There, he invented a method of copying letters and drawings. He led the way for the
manufacture of chlorine and acted as technical adviser for his friends. However, it was the
steam engine that remained his main occupation. In 1775, Watt and Boulton decided to
petition Parliament to extend the application of his patent; time was running too fast for
them to make money out of it.
The first orders arrived in 1776. The first engines erected needed substantial repairs,
maintenance and improvements but they nevertheless proved the value of the invention.
The method of payment for the steam engine consisted of taking a share of the savings
occurring through the use of the engine. Boulton and Watt manufactured some specific
parts of the engine but their customer had to provision others from suppliers. This method
of payment created some resentment from customers. In 1777, Watt had to move to
Cornwall to supervise the erection of engines. Success was now on their side even though
Boulton had to face some financial worries. By 1778, 78 reciprocating engines had been
erected. Over time, Boulton and Watt tried to secure patents in France, America, Spain,
Austria, Belgium, Prussia, etc. In 1781, Watt filed five patents to give life to the rotative
motion including the ‘sun and planet’ motion, solving a long standing mechanical puzzle. It
paved the way for new applications in the textile industry and new sources of revenue for
Watt and Boulton. In 1782, Watt invented the double acting engine, then, the parallel
motion and, finally, the centrifugal governor. All those demonstrate the technical elegance of
the Scotsman.
44
Matthew Boulton (1728-1809) was an English manufacturer and engineer; in 1762, he built the Soho
manufactory near Birmingham. The factory produced small metal articles such as gilt and silver buttons and
buckles, Sheffield plate, and a variety of other items.
83
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

However, he was not the sole inventive steam worker. Hornblower had developed a more
efficient engine. Watt was well aware of this. It copied some of the invention of Watt but
offered 50% more power. Hornblower challenged the patent of Boulton and Watt who
used their parliamentary connections to oppose this move. They continued to oppose
competition over the years, therefore, securing their wealth. By 1800, more than 800 steam
engines could be attributed to them (Marsden, 2002).
Engines were not the only field of interest for Watt. Like Wedgwood, he was part of the
Lunar Society. In 1783, Watt intended to develop a calculating device but did not pursue this
line of research. He developed a method to copy letters and drawings and invented the iron
cement to make steam-tight joints. Watt also played a part in scientific efforts, such as the
discovery that water was a compound and not an element. During retirement, he developed
machines that could be used to duplicate statues. He died rich in 1819, at the age of 84.
Watt’s ability to observe and his numerous friendships in inventive and scientific circles
brought him a wide diversity of problems to solve. He even used ‘Observare’ as a motto (A/
Attentiveness: the power of observation)
Watt had to use a sophisticated experimental approach in order to come up with a radically
improved version of the Newcomen steam engine. He had to investigate natural
phenomenon to grasp what prevented his engine from becoming perfect (B/
Experimentation: the ‘perfect engine’ as a guide).
In order to find investors and partners, James Watt lacked the eloquence of Wedgwood and
the glibness of an Arkwright; he therefore relied on his friendships and connections to
persuade others and help him to progress in his inventive activities (C/ Persuasion: ‘steam
connections’). At the end of his life, James Watt and later, his heir, embellished the
accounts of the invention of the steam engine and made a legend of him.
84
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A. Attentiveness: the power of observation
Adam Smith and James Watt knew each other. The philosopher and economist had Watt in
his mind when he wrote eloquently in the first pages of ‘The Wealth of Nations’ about
speculators and philosophers:
‘(A)ll the improvements in machinery, however, have by no means been the inventions of those who
had occasion to use the machines. Many improvements have been made by the ingenuity of the
makers of the machines, when to make them became the business of a peculiar trade; and some
by that of those who are called philosophers or men of speculation, whose trade it is not to do
anything, but to observe everything; and who, upon that account, are often capable of combining
together the powers of the most distant and dissimilar objects’ (Smith, 1776).
It is not known today whether it was Watt who brought the word ‘observation’ to the
attention of Smith or Watt developed his motto ‘Observare’ following the steps of Smith. In
any case, this emphasises the role of observation in inventive activities. The primary interest
of Watt for observation led him to develop many friendships and a vast knowledge.
Watt was at the forefront of most of the technical and scientific developments of his time,
which could sometimes work against his business interests. As an instrument maker, Watt
recognised the need for specialisation to decrease costs. Nevertheless, he enjoyed copying
other people’s products. It provided him with opportunities to observe interesting
mechanism. According to Robinson, one of the professors at the University of Glasgow,
Watt was ‘continually striking into untrodden paths, where I was always obliged to be a follower’
(Hills, 2002). Such versatility provided him with many opportunities to re-use some
mechanism from one machine or another. Hills (2002) suggested that the perspective
drawing machine use of parallel drawers could have been a source of inspiration for his later
parallel motion on his rotative steam engine.
Every time he faced a new technical puzzle, Watt started by reading the relevant literature
before experimenting. He once said: ‘I have never yet read a book, or conversed with a
companion, without gaining information, instruction, or amusement’ (Hills, 2002). Watt, according
85
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

to Robinson, got acquainted with the German language in order to understand the
‘Theatrum Machinarum’, written by Leupold 45. Sometimes, Watt was kindly helped by other
people in his research. To support his work on the Newcomen engine, it was Robinson who
assisted him in searching the literature, as he was occupied by his business. Never accepting
the presence of obstacles between him and knowledge, Watt, for instance, asked helped
from a Swiss dyer to read a book in German about the work in the mines in the Upper
Hartz (Dickinson, 1967).
Through his many friends, Watt was always confronted with the most challenging problems
and the most interesting discoveries. For instance, Watt enjoyed going to London where he
could meet instrument makers and exchange ‘professional gossips’ (Marsden, 2002). At the
University of Glasgow, he ended up at the centre of an informal circle of minds passionate
about natural philosophy and inventive activities. He was also accepted as member of the
Anderston club amongst the most famous mathematicians and professors of Scotland. In
Birmingham he took part in the Lunar Society.
Robinson described how Watt became the centre of scientific and technical discussions in
Glasgow: ‘(A)ll the young lads of our little place that were any way remarkable for scientific
predilection were acquaintances of Mr Watt; and his parlour was a rendez-vous for all of this
description. Whenever any puzzle came in the way of any of us, we went to Mr. Watt. He needed
only to be prompted; everything became to him the beginning of a new and serious study; and we
knew that he would not quit until he had either discovered its significance, or had made something
of it. No matter in what line, language, antiquity, natural history, - nay, poetry, criticism and works of
taste; as to anything in line with engineering, whether civil or military he was at home and a ready
instructor’ (Hills, 2002).
The intense exchanges between those brilliant minds sometimes led to polemics. For
instances, it has been said that Watt’s invention of the separate condenser was inspired by
the findings of Black’s and his theory of the latent heat. According to Watt himself, it was
not the case. Black, who was a friend of Watt, had discovered that different bodies had
45
Jacob Leupold (1674–1727) was a German instrument maker, mining commissioner and an engineer who
published an important and popular book Theatri Machinarum (The General Theory of Machines).
86
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

different capacities for heat and that all bodies require for their fusion an immense quantity
of caloric. This did not inspire the work of Watt. It is only when Watt was puzzled by some
of his own measures that he talked to Black and realised that his own work was in fact a
confirmation of Black’s. The investigations of Watt spurred new research by Black (Hills,
2002).
James Watt, the attentive inventor who believed in the power of observation, not only used
that skill to spot technical or business opportunities, he also put it to good use as part of his
experiments on the steam engine.
B. Experimentation: the ‘perfect engine’ as a guide
Watt learned a lot through experiments and he made this very clear when he declined, in a
letter, an offer for employment in Russia: ‘I am a person of no great learning, but I have had
from my infancy a propensity to mechanics and chemistry, and have tried many experiments in both
these sciences. What little knowledge I have is the fruit of these experiments’ (Hills, 2002). As
outlined below, Watt’s knack for experiments was supported by his access to some of the
well-known natural philosophers 46 of his time. His concept of the perfect engine was
essential to his success.
At the University of Glasgow, as instrument maker for the faculty, Watt was at the best
school possible to learn the practices of Experimentation. His affiliation with Anderson,
Black and other professors such as Wilson 47 played an important role. Anderson, professor
of natural philosophy at the University of Glasgow, appointed Watt to mend demonstration
apparatus covering the disciplines of physics, mechanics, pneumatics and electricity. He was
also asked to demonstrate himself the apparatus on a number of occasions. Watt thanked
Black for teaching him reason and experiment in natural philosophy and recognised that it
facilitated his own progress. The systematic approach of Black to note-taking in experiments
influenced the practices of Watt (Hills, 2002). Watt is considered by Hills (2002) as one of
46
Natural philosophy is a term applied to the objective study of nature and the physical universe that was
dominant before the development of modern science.
47
About Wilson, see infra.
87
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the first to use graphs instead of tables for engineering purpose. One of these was relating
pressure against temperature. He later related such measurement to atmospheric pressure.
As an instrument maker, Watt was able to develop scientific instruments and apparatus. It
played an important role in his work. Wilson ordered barometers from him. He was familiar
with the use of balance in chemistry pioneered by Black. By using barometer and mercurial
manometers, he explored the relationship between temperature and the pressure of steam.
Watt also developed a micrometer to measure the length of pieces of metal and to create
scales on glass. In 1773, he claimed he was able to ‘divide an inch in 1,000 tolerably equal and
distinct parts on glass’ (Hills, 2002).
When Watt started to work on the model of the Newcomen engine of the university, he
was unimpressed by its performance and decided to improve it. He started to experiment
by relating the performance of the engine to different parameters. In many instances, he was
concerned that some parameters could interfere with the experiments he intended to
conduct. It led him to adopt a measurement discipline and to multiply experiments to gain
accuracy and understanding of the mechanism. Following this episode, he concluded that the
steam engine was imperfect: ‘(F)irst because the cylinder having been cooled by the Injection in
the preceding stroke condenses a considerable quantity of steam besides what is necessary to fill it.
Secondly, because the vacuum is imperfect without the cylinder and all the water in it be cooled
down to 90° Fahrenheit thermometer. If this was done, the vacuum could be made perfect but the
condensation of the team the next stroke would much over balance the power gained, therefore
experience has taught Men that an engine works most advantageously when loaded about half the
pressure of the atmosphere’ (Hills, 2002).
From this analysis, he derived the concept of ‘Perfect engine’ that would use only one
cylinder full of steam at each stroke and the steam would be condensed to a perfect
vacuum. This concept of perfect engine is very important to understand the approach of
Watt to Experimentation. In a random trial and error situation, it is impossible to know if a
mechanism is perfectible or not and to what extent it is perfectible. By using the perfect
engine as a standard of performance, Watt knew that the engine was perfectible and had
clear means to measure how far it was from perfection. Such a concept of perfection was
88
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

used at that time in religious or architectural and engineering matters. For instance, it was
applied by Smeaton, a civil engineer, to the design of the waterwheel (Marsden, 2002).
When applicable, it is a means to increase one’s chances of success when pursuing
experiments. This concept is similar to the notions of ‘hill climbing’ and of ‘Means-end analysis’
suggested by Simon and his colleagues (Klahr & Simon 2001).
The perfect engine helped Watt to move beyond random investigation and to learn whether
he was on the right track. Watt had already ensured that the boiler would consume as little
heat as possible in order to improve fuel consumption 48. He investigated the relationship
between the volume of steam and the volume of water, it helped him to measure the steam
consumption of an engine. He also explored the heat capacity of different materials. At that
stage, he concluded that ‘it was necessary that the cylinder should be as hot as the steam and
that the steam should be cooled down below 100° in order to exert its full powers’ (Hills, 2002).
This research led to the invention of the separate condenser, the separation of the two
actions of heating the cylinder with hot steam and cooling it to condense the steam for
every stroke of the engine.
After Watt invented the separate condenser, he decided to abandon the use of a water-jet
and to use surface condensers. However, it was in 1775 that success materialised when he
reverted his approach to the water jet.
To understand the ‘mysteries’ of steam, Watt’s approach to Experimentation was to
breakdown a problem into a series of simple ones for which practical Experimentation could
be conducted. He unveiled the secrets of steam by studying different phenomena in
separation 49.
Having made progress on the model of the Newcomen engine, Watt had to develop his
own model and to scale up his invention. At this stage, it appears that he stopped altering
parameters one by one and started to make major changes from one experiment to
48
He discovered that the surface and the quantity of water played no role, but that the distance between the
source of heat and the boiler as well as the use of thin sheets of metal was important.
49
It relates to the notion of ‘functional decomposition’ that was already mentioned in the case of Arkwright, see
Section 1.
89
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

another. Such an approach led to many fruitless experiments. Hills (2002) suggested that this
could be explained by the absence of help from Robinson and Black during this period. Later
in a letter to Small 50, Watt wrote an interesting comment to warn his friend about the risks
of chasing more than one goal at a time: ‘(…) unless I do what I have done too often, neglect
certainty for hope’ (Hills, 2005).
Dickinson (1967) summarised such difficulties related to Experimentation: ‘(O)f a number of
alternatives, he does not seem to have had the flair of knowing which was the most practicable,
hence he expended his energies on many avenues that lead to dead ends. In truth, this is the
attitude of the scientist rather than the one of the craftsman. Still, unless he had explored these
avenues he could not be certain they were dead ends.’ Troubleshooting the invention ended up
being a long and painful process.
The achievement of Watt and his approach to Experimentation are remarkable, his progress
was not guided by scientific knowledge but by some of the experimental stratagems of
science in order to investigate natural phenomena that helped him to come as close as
possible to the ‘perfect engine’. Without this search, the separated condenser would not
have imposed itself as a solution.
C. Persuasion: ‘steam connections’
James Watt had, at the same time, a reserved character and an aptitude for developing
friendships. He was never skilled at confronting adversity, and he lacked a diplomatic
temperament. One of his contemporaries said of him that he was ‘modest, timid, easily
frightened by rubs and misgivings and too apt to respond’ (Dickinson, 1967). However, the deep
friendships he maintained demonstrate an attractive personality and convincing manners
(Hills, 2002).
50
About Small, see infra.
90
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In his obituary, Lord Jeffrey 51 painted a highly eloquent portrait of Watt. He insisted on his
vast knowledge and his intelligence but he also described him as a man who could easily
engage and capture the attention of others: ‘(H)e had infinite quickness of apprehension, a
prodigious memory, and a certain rectifying and methodising power of understanding (…). It is
needless to say, that, with those vast resources, his conversation was at all times rich and instructive
in no ordinary degree… No man could be more social in his spirit, less assuming or fastidious in his
manners, or more kind and indulgent towards all who approached him. He rather liked to talk. His
talk, too, though overflowing with information, had no resemblance to lecturing or solemn
discoursing, but, on the contrary, was full of colloquial spirit and pleasantry’ (Hills, 2002).
In his early career, the progress of James Watt could be compared to the irresistible
ascension of an asset towards its most valuable use, thanks to the people he met at every
stage. Watt made his way to Glasgow thanks to his uncle Muirheid who introduced him to
professors at the university where he was himself a professor. He met with a professor of
natural philosophy named Dick, who encouraged him to go to London and offered him a
letter of introduction to a famous telescope maker. In London, he learned and worked
under the guidance of five or six instrument makers in order to gain a wide range of skills
that could be used back in Scotland. On his return, Dick offered him some work at the
university. He met eminent scientists, such as:
• Robinson who shared with Watt his plans for using the steam engine to power
wheel-carriages;
• Anderson, who asked him to maintain the university model of the Newcomen
engine;
• Wilson who ordered from Watt a barometer to record temperature changes at the
boiling point, he also involved him in canal survey;
• Black, who pioneered the use of balance in chemistry and developed the theory of
latent heat, which both played a role in the development of the steam engine.
51
Lord Jeffrey was editor of The Edinburgh Review, a quarterly journal that was the pre-eminent organ of
British political and literary criticism in the early 19th century.
91
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Later, Black introduced Watt to Roebuck who financed his first full scale works on steam
engines in Kinneil. Roebuck recognised the value of Watt’s steam engine and of the Alkali
from the salt project. As a civil engineer, Watt met with Small, a Scotsman who moved to
Birmingham in 1765. Small introduced Boulton, Keir and other prominent Birmingham
figures to Watt (Dickinson, 1967).
Watt was able to convince his peers at the University of Glasgow and in Birmingham of the
significance of the separate condenser because he was able to relate it to his concept of
‘perfect engine’. Developing a model was also instrumental in convincing people of the value
of the concept.
Watt had often a humble and modest attitude. However, on a number of occasions, he did
not hesitate to ‘self-fashion’, especially when his reputation was at stake. To support the
extension of his patent in 1775, he presented his work as a series of philosophical
investigations. It helped him to differentiate his own findings from the engines of Newcomen
and Savery. However, securing the legal success around Watt’s patent was very much owed
to Boulton’s ability to bargain for the support of influential people.
In the 1790’s, Robinson wrote articles about the steam and steam engine in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. It turned out to be different from the eloquent and panegyric
account that Watt wanted. Pressed by some friends, Watt published his own account of his
contribution to the steam quest (Marsden, 2002). Watt insisted he had a flash of genius that
led to the invention of the separate condenser as he was walking in a park of Glasgow. Such
stories tend to hide the laborious progress and the countless experiments that were needed
to progress the steam engine but it offered a certain aura to the inventor.
92
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter 2. Networks of inventors in 18th century Britain
The study of the three career inventors proves that their successes relied deeply on their
network of acquaintances, friends and peers that they could mobilise. Arkwright listened to
the people in order to spot business and technical opportunities. Wedgwood developed a
network of friends and acquaintances who guided him around recent technical
developments, fashion as well as current political and philosophical issues. James Watt relied
on his numerous acquaintances to find business partners and investors.
This raises the question of the nature and functioning of collective arrangements that
supported inventive activities at that time. This second chapter investigates, through the
lenses of the A-E-P triptych, networks of individuals engaged in inventive activities.
Social networks have been considered as omnipresent social contexts to economic
transactions. The economic sociologist saw human action embedded in networks of
relationships: ‘(T)heir attempts at purposive action are instead embedded in concrete, ongoing
systems of social relations’ (Granovetter, 1985). Trust has often been presented as an
interpersonal feature of networks (Axelrod, 1984), it limits the frictions inherent to the use
of the price mechanism by reducing the uncertainty that can exist when market exchanges
occur.
Håkansson and Johanson (1988) distinguish between social and industrial networks; social
networks consist of actors while industrial networks consist of a complex pattern of three
interrelated elements, actors, activities and resources. Others have proposed to move
beyond social networks to consider ‘a national system of innovation’ (Edquist,1997), (Lundvall,
1992) (Nelson, 1993), defined as ‘the networks of institutions in the public and private sectors
whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies’ (Freeman,
1987). In other circumstances, the term network is used to refer to large firms and their
suppliers. The focus will be here on individuals engaged in inventive activities. It will look at
both social and industrial networks.
93
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Patton and Kenney (2003) present a core difference between networks and markets that
are both based on reciprocal exchanges. ‘Networks differ from these other forms of economic
organi(s)ation in terms of the identity of the actors and the relationships among them. Reciprocity is
a crucial consideration in these relationships. Unlike market actors, members of a network engage
in reciprocal exchange where benefits are given without the expectation of immediate benefits in
return. In other words, the exchanges are not treated as though they are taking place on a spot
marker. Although benefits may very well balance out in the long run, network exchange is not
simultaneous and is not subject to the short-term rational calculations of a market transaction – the
issue that much of the network proponents miss is whether there is a long-term rational calculation.
Often, the distinction between short-term and long-term rationality and efficiency is missed’.
In some specific situations, networks are less regarded as an omnipresent social context but
more as a mode of collective arrangement supportive of inventive activities. The archetype
of this mode of governance is the network of individuals involved in innovation within the
Silicon Valley. Its foundation can be traced back to the ideas proposed by Alfred Marshall
(1890) who identified ‘industrial district’ as specialised local economies where knowledge is
freely shared.
The pioneering work of Saxenian presented here by Casuntila, Hwang, Granovetter and
Granovetter (2000) present the role of network in the Silicon Valley. ‘Saxenian (1994) shows
that Silicon Valley shares many of the characteristics of European industrial districts, and thus
promotes collective learning among specialist producers of interrelated technologies. In this
decentrali(s)ed system, dense social networks and open labour markets encourage entrepreneurship
and the ongoing mobili(s)ation of resources. Companies compete intensely, but simultaneously learn
about changing markets and technologies through informal communications, collaborative projects,
and common ties to research associations and universities. High rates of job mobility spread
technology, promote the recombination of skills and capital, and aid the region’s development.
Silicon Valley companies, just as those in Germany and Italy, trade with the whole world, but the
core of knowledge and production remains local. One way the Valley accomplishes this
recombination of knowledge and capital is through spin-offs, which have contributed to the
construction of dense social networks of entrepreneurs, inventors, and other institutional actors.’
94
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Networks have been presented as ‘a mode of governance that aims at addressing high level of
uncertainty’ by Robertson and Langlois (1995). They revisited the argument of Knight 52 that
modes of governance are a function of uncertainty and they suggested that markets best fit
low level of uncertainty and innovative network best fit high level of uncertainty.
The present work will suggest that networks can be defined as sets of relationships between
individuals (not firms) facing uncertainty and that such relationship can be interpreted as
transactions where information is exchanged for free.
This will be investigated by looking at the ‘Lunar society’, a network of people who had
interests in scientific, inventive and money-making activities. First, after a presentation of the
Lunar society, two types of relationships will be studied: the ones amongst members of the
Lunar society and the ones between regular members of the Lunar society and other
persons (Section 1) This will lead to an analysis of how the A-E-P triptych of abilities can
be mobilised to explain the existence and functioning of such network of inventors
(Section 2).
52
See infra, Part 2, chapter 2.
95
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section I. The Lunar society and relationships
A. Presentation of the Lunar Society
The Lunar society brought together over the years a number of individuals, most of them
were involved in some sort of inventive activities. Watt and Wedgwood were both
associated with this group. Schofield (1963) dates the start of collaboration between three
of the members in 1765. They lived near Birmingham and met on the Monday nearest to the
full moon. Marsden (2002) described their association as a ‘fertile test-bed for new ideas’.
Matthew Boulton 53 was one of the individuals at the origin of this group. Erasmus Darwin
was a doctor, a poet and a renowned botanist to name a few of his areas of predilection.
Small brought to America new methods of education before coming back to England and
settling down as a doctor in the area of Birmingham. He played an important role in keeping
the Lunar circle a lively one. Thomas Day was a philanthropist who had limited interest in
scientific or inventive activities but who, nevertheless, participated to the exchanges
amongst the members of the society. Richard Edgeworth was a brilliant mechanic. James
Keir was a chemist and an inventor. James Priestley was a renowned scientist and polemist.
As mentioned in the introductory pages, the Lunar Society was not the sole network at that
time. A number of ‘Lunar men’ were associated with the Royal Society of London, sooner or
later in their life. This society had no interest in applied science but had a highly regarded
social status. Other societies were covering specific fields: the Botanical society, the British
Mineralogical society, etc. The one that supported improvements and technical development
of businesses was The Society of Arts. Awards were given for best solutions related to specific
problems, it gathered the majority of prominent manufacturers of England and its reach
went far beyond London. Local societies appeared to support local efforts in cities such as
Bristol, Bath, Manchester, Birmingham and Newcastle.
Studying networks can prove difficult as informal relationships rarely leave many traces.
Moving beyond the collection of evidence can be difficult. However, the Lunar circle offers a
53
See supra, Chapter 1, Section 3.
96
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

unique opportunity as its members established a lively correspondence amongst themselves
and with others. These primary sources have now been studied and analysed. This paves the
way for a more systematic approach to the analysis of the formation and exploitation of the
network as a collective resource.
The method used here aims at providing a quantitative analysis within a very qualitative field
of enquiry. Relationships between individuals will be systematically analysed to see if, and
how, the three abilities play a role in the institutionalisation of the network or if they justify
the exploitation of the network by agents. All relationships will be studied as to whether
they involve one of the abilities or not. The order of introduction follows the chronological
logic of Schofield, the Lunar Society of Birmingham, a social history of provincial science and
industry in Eighteenth-Century England, (1963). The present study will be based on the
chapters 2, 3 and 4 who introduced the main participants to the Lunar Society one by one.
Galton, Johnson and Stokes are not covered by this analysis as they were late additions to a
group that had passed its apogee. Whenever a reference to one of the three abilities is
made, the ability at play is mentioned in bracket. The relationships that do not involve one
of the three abilities of the A-E-P triptych are highlighted in grey. Primary sources are
quoted in brackets. The text of Schofield is presented as such and most of the time in an
abridged version. The relationships are presented using their order of appearance within the
book.
Regular participants to the Lunar Society will be studied in a first table; other people who
have been connected to the group will be studied in a second table.
97
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society
Table 1: Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society
Relationships The relationship and how it relates to Attentiveness, #
Experimentation and Persuasion
Boulton-Darwin • Darwin was the first acquaintance of Boulton with a formal 1
education and a trained interest in science 54 (Attentiveness).
• Boulton might have assisted Darwin in experiments related to the
ascent of vapour (Experimentation).
• Around the time they first met, Darwin sent a letter to Boulton
about ‘faery chariots’ where he wrote ‘I shall lay my thoughts before
you, crude and indigested as they occur to Darwin-Whitehurst
me…as by those Hints you may be led into various Trains of
thinking upon the subject, and by any means (if any Hints can
assists your genius, which without Hints is above all others I am
acquainted with) be more likely to improve or disapprove’
(Attentiveness).
• The previous letter may have been the beginning of the interest of
Boulton in steam engines (Attentiveness).
Darwin-Whitehurst • Whitehurst conducted some co-operative investigations with 2
Darwin (Experimentation).
• Whitehurst was the first to bring the subject of Geology to the
Lunar circle (Attentiveness).
Boulton- • Whitehurst constructed a pyrometer for Boulton to be used in 3
Whitehurst experiments to investigate heat expansion of metal; hygrometers
and barometers are also mentioned (Experimentation).
Small-Boulton • Boulton did little in science without Small’s advice (Attentiveness). 4
Small-Galton • Galton said of Small: ‘some eminently scientific men have shown their 5
original power by little more than a continuous flow of helpful
suggestions and criticism‘(Attentiveness).
Darwin-Small- • Darwin wrote to Boulton ‘Our ingenious friend Dr Small. From whom 6
Boulton and from you, when I was last at Birmingham I received ideas ...’
(Attentiveness).
Darwin-Edgeworth- • Darwin wrote to Boulton about a new friend, Edgeworth: ‘he has 7
Boulton-small ye principles of nature in his palm, and moulds them as He pleases. Can
take away polarity or give it to the needle by rubbing it thrice on ye palm
of his hand and can see through two solid Oak boards without glasses!
54
In SCHOFIELD, The Lunar society of Birmingham, a social history of provincial science and industry in
Eighteenth-Century England, (1963), page 19.
98
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Astonishing! Diabolical!!! Pray tell Dr. Small He must come to see these
Miracles’ (Attentiveness, Experimentation, and Persuasion).
Darwin-Edgeworth • Someone not mentioned by his name had mentioned to Edgeworth 8
a carriage invented by Darwin. Edgeworth wrote ‘from this hint (…)
I invented a very handsome Phaeton upon this principle’
(Attentiveness).
• He wrote to Darwin about this and was later invited by him for a
visit.
Edgeworth-Boulton • Edgeworth wrote ‘I shewed some of those deception of Comus, which I 9
had discovered. They were particularly a propos, as at that time Mr
Bolton was making a large number of magnets for exportation. He
asked me to his house (…)’ (Attentiveness).
Day-other • Day had limited interest in science or mechanics, his concerns 10
members were metaphysical philanthropic, educational and political.
Schofield explains his participation to the Lunar circle because of
‘money lent and affection.’
• Day had the eloquence to make the belief of the other members
glamorous and morally right (Persuasion).
Darwin-Boulton • Darwin wrote to Boulton: ‘I (…) am going to make innumerable 11
Experiments on aqueous, sulphurous, metallic, and saline vapours. Food
for Fire-engine!’ (Experimentation).
Watt-other • As Watt joined the Lunar society, steam engine experiments 12
members independent of Watt disappeared. (Experimentation)
Keir-Watt-Small • Keir and Watt competed on the production of Alkali through 13
experiments (Experimentation). Small, who was in relation with
both, contributed to the emulation. He encouraged them to
exchange on the topic (Attentiveness)
99
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

C. Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society and
another person
Table 2: Relationship between regular members of the Lunar Society and another
person
People part of the The relationship and how it relates to Attentiveness, #
relationship Experimentation and Persuasion
Darwin-Eeles • Eeles was a scientist associated with the Royal Society. Darwin started a 1
controversy with him about the ascent of vapour. This was based on
some experiment conducted by Darwin with probable support of
Boulton (Persuasion).
Darwin-Boulton- • Michell, a distinguished scientist, frequently visited Birmingham and the 2
Michell members of the Lunar circle. The experiments of Darwin on the ascent
of vapour probably supported by Boulton might have been the cause of
his first visit. (Attentiveness).
• Michell was responsible for the further extending of the horizons of the
Lunar circle (Attentiveness)
Boulton - • Boulton and Baskerville were friends. 3
Baskerville • Franklin was keen to meet Baskerville who printed the writings of Virgil
Franklin (Attentiveness)
Boulton-Franklin- • Michell sent a letter of introduction to Boulton about Franklin. He 4
Michell referred to Boulton’s interest in electricity (Attentiveness).
• Boulton became an agent for procuring electrical apparatus for
experiments (Persuasion, Experimentation).
• Franklin was to become a recurrent visitor to the Lunar circle
(Attentiveness).
• Franklin and Boulton conducted experiments together on electricity
(Experimentation).
Whitehurst- • Franklin promised to send to Whitehurst a journal of the weather a 5
Franklin friend of his kept for several years (Attentiveness).
• Whitehurst had promised to deliver a thermometer to Franklin
(Experimentation).
Boulton – Darwin – • Petit from, the Royal Society, ordered thermometers from Boulton 6
Petit through Darwin (Experimentation)
Boulton-Roebuck • Boulton and Roebuck, the entrepreneur collaborated on the 7
thermometer. (Experimentation)
• Boulton later bought his shares in the partnership with Watt
Boulton-Darwin- • Ferguson, an astronomer, gave some lectures in Birmingham where 8
Ferguson Boulton and Darwin attended. Schofield says that the inimitable
performance attracted the attention of Boulton (Attentiveness)
Boulton-Small- • Franklin introduced Small to Boulton in a letter as an ‘ingenious philosopher 9
Franklin and a worthy man’ (Persuasion)
100
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Small-Jefferson • Small educated Jefferson, the American politician who said of him: ‘from 10
his conversation, I got my first views of the expansion of science and of the
system of things in which we are placed’ (Attentiveness)
Small-Ash • Small shared a house with a local respected physician Ash 11
Wedgwood- • In a committee that was formed to petition for parliamentary approval of 12
Bentley-Darwin- a canal, Darwin first saw the pamphlet written by Wedgwood and Bentley
Bindley-Garbett- as a nuisance but later he became a canal enthusiast (Persuasion).
Boulton-Small • Bindley and Garbett also supported the scheme (Persuasion).
• Darwin involved Boulton and Small. Wedgwood wrote to ‘Boulton who
had taken ‘ye infection’ (Persuasion).
• The interest for canals was later shared by almost all members of the
Lunar Society (Attentiveness, Persuasion).
Wedgwood- • Willet was a Reverend versed in scientific subjects. He helped 13
Priestley-willet Wedgwood, his brother-in-law, with his self-study (Attentiveness).
• He was a host of Priestley when he was teaching at Nantwich.
Wedgwood- • Wedgwood was encouraged to experiment by Whielden, a master potter 14
Whielden (Experimentation).
Wedgwood- • Wedgwood was introduced to Priestley and Bentley by Turner, the 15
Turner—Priestley- surgeon, when he was being treated by him in Liverpool
Bentley
Wedgwood-Bentley • Bentley introduced Wedgwood to a new world of people and ideas. He 16
sent advice on books, hints on pottery design, suggestion on techniques
to increase sales, and advice about experiments (Attentiveness,
Experimentation).
Darwin-Butlers- • Wedgwood talked in a letter about a new carriage of Mr Butlers with 17
interesting technical devices that were first suggested by Darwin
(Attentiveness).
Edgeworth-Delaval • Edgeworth attended a show in London by the ’Celebrated Comus’ 18
described as a combination of Magic and Parlour-science. Together with a
friend, Delaval he created a show of his own which won him many
acquaintances in London (Attentiveness, Experimentation, Persuasion).
Edgeworth- • After reading books of Wilkins and Hooke, Edgeworth designed a 19
Wilkins-Hooke- mechanical telegraph. His experiments are anterior to the ones of
Chappe Chappe in France. Chappe was the first to introduce an operating system
and Edgeworth did the same after him (Attentiveness).
Edgeworth- • Edgeworth decided to make a fair trial of Rousseau’s system described in 20
Rousseau ‘Emile’. The boy ended up unmanageable. Rousseau criticised the results
when he met the child. (Attentiveness, Experimentation).
Day-Rousseau • Day adopted two girls to educate them in the principles of Rousseau. He 21
wanted a perfect wife for himself. He abandoned it, as the results were
not promising. (Experimentation).
Day-Edgeworth— • Anne Seward, who would become a poetess, hosted coteries where 22
Darwin-Boulton- members of the Lunar circle attended.
Small-Keir-Anna
Seward-Honora • Day and Edgeworth both fell in love with Honora Sneyd, a friend of Anna
101
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Sneyd Seward. Day transferred his affection to her sister Elisabeth, who ended
up rejecting him. After the death of his wife, Edgeworth married Honora.
• When Edgeworth was in love with Honora, Day asked him if reason
could not prevail over his emotions. Edgeworth answered ’nothing but trial
could make me acquainted with the influence, which reason might have over
my feelings; that I would go with my family to Lichfield, where I would be in the
company of the dangerous object’ (Experimentation).
Day-Bicknell • Day and Bicknell wrote an anti-slavery poem together (Persuasion). 23
Boulton-Pringle- • Carbioni wrote to Boulton ‘I recently visited Dr. Pringle and Dr. Franklin. We 24
Franklin- Carbioni spoke much of your goodness, your merits, and your project of a new steam
engine. I would like very much to see it.’ (Attentiveness).
• Boulton sent a model to Franklin to get his opinion (Attentiveness).
• Franklin responded that Experimentation will best decide
(Experimentation)
Watt-Anderson- • All of them were members of the same club in Glasgow. Watt wrote ‘our 25
Millar-Simpson- conversations…turned principally on literary topics, religion, belles-lettres.; and
Smith-Black Cullen to those conversations my mind owed its first bias towards such subjects’
(Attentiveness).
Watt-Robinson- • Watt’s shop became the favourite gathering spot for them. Watt became 26
other students a listener and a participant in scientific conversation held there. From
such discussions, he acquired his first knowledge of scientific,
experimental procedures. (Attentiveness, Experimentation).
Watt-Black • Watt said of Black ‘the correct modes of reasoning and of making 27
experiments to which he set me the example, certainly conduced very much to
facilitate the progress of my inventions’(Attentiveness, Experimentation).
Watt-Black- • Roebuck and Black experimented on decomposition of salt 28
Roebuck-Boulton (Experimentation).
• Roebuck had invested in mines that were flooded, Black told him about
Watt’s engine. He agreed to carry the cost of development
(Attentiveness).
• Boulton later bought the shares of Roebuck in the steam engine and
started his partnership with Watt.
Watt-Small-De • Watt started his correspondence with Small after a visit to Birmingham. 29
Luc-Smeaton- He mentions reading a book of De Luc and experiments he started
Boulton following his reading (Attentiveness, Experimentation).
• He expresses worries related to the progress of Smeaton.
• Small encouraged Watt to publish, offers to help him and to present it to
the Royal Society (Persuasion).
• Small also made suggestions to Watt (Attentiveness).
Keir-Whitehurst- • They testified for Keir in a petition that aimed at exempting him from salt 30
Blair-Boulton- duties, as he developed a method to produce salt from Alkali
Watt-More (Persuasion).
Watt-Boulton- • As for Keir, those ones testified for Watt in a petition that aimed at 31
James Black exempting him from salt duties, as he developed a method to produce
salt from Alkali (Persuasion).
102
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section II. The A-E-P triptych, a framework to explain the
existence and functioning of network of inventors
The work of the historian Schofield offers a springboard to better understand the nature of
networks of inventors. Out of 44 of the relationships recorded above, all, except for two,
have at least one of the three abilities playing a role in their establishment or exploitation.
The two remaining ones do not demonstrate a role for any of the three abilities, which does
not necessarily mean that they never played a role in specific relationships.
Within the remit of the Lunar circle and with the outside world, the three abilities have
different weights in the establishment and the exploitation of the network (see table 3).
Attentiveness is ahead of the others:
Within Lunar circle Outside of Lunar circle
Attentiveness: 11 Attentiveness: 28
Experimentation: 7 Experimentation: 15
Persuasion: 2 Persuasion: 12
Table 3: role of the three abilities in the establishment and exploitation of networks
Attentiveness tended to play an important role. On the one hand, participants to the
network of inventors brought interesting information to the attention of the others. On the
other hand, participants to the network sought advice from each other. Attentiveness is not
solely based on the exchange of technical information, exchanges on other topics, such as
literature, occurred between participants within the network. This might not have
contributed to inventive activities but it brought the participants to the network closer to
each other.
Experiments were conducted together by members of the network. They also regularly
benefited from the help of others to access instruments and apparatus in order to perform
those experiments. In a number of cases mentioned above, experiments simply acted as a
means to share useful pieces of information amongst people with common interests.
103
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Persuasion took the form of letters of introduction and alliances to support new schemes,
such as petitioning the government. In some cases, individuals put their Persuasion ability at
the disposal of others. Networks created relationships that helped inventors access
investors and business partners. Persuasion played a more significant role with the outside
circle of the Lunar Society than within it. Within the network, participants tended to share
the same views of the world and Persuasion was very much about joining forces to convince
the outside world.
The A-E-P triptych of abilities also came into play together. Experiments help to persuade
others. By experimenting in groups, participants to the network benefit from the advice and
suggestions made by others. By bringing information to the attention of some participants,
one can persuade others of the value of their work and, sometimes, secure some funds.
Inventors taking part in the Lunar Society were bound together by these abilities. They were
attentive to each other’s ideas and achievements, they used experiments to gain feedback
from each other and to spread knowledge. They joined forces to persuade others to adopt
their inventions. Such networks play a fundamental role in inventive activities.
Looking beyond the Lunar Society, a network is, first and foremost, a collective arrangement
along which information circulates freely. When uncertainty is high, when costs and benefits
are considered unpredictable by inventors, such a form of network is an appropriate
collective arrangement to progress together. Networks bring interesting information to the
attention of individuals, they provide physical and informational resources to conduct
experiments and they help to mobilise allies when one needs to persuade others. Taking a
marginalist perspective, a new participant to a network will be keen to bring new
information or experiments to the attention of others in order to be accepted. As his
contribution is valued by others, he will have access to the information detained by them, to
the resources they use to experiment and to their collective Persuasion power.
As the three abilities contribute to reduce uncertainties, networks appear as a collective
arrangement that provides a means to advance knowledge and reduce uncertainty. The
104
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

study of the Lunar society tends to confirm the ideas of Robertson and Langlois (1995), who
suggested that markets best fit low levels of uncertainty and innovative network best fit high
levels of uncertainty. A network also appears as a self-reinforcing arrangement; as the three
abilities come to play, relationships intensified and networks solidified.
In the case of the Lunar Society, the networks appear as a sort of magma from which
markets and firms tend to emerge. For instance, along the different branches of the Lunar
network:
• a market for instruments emerged;
• a partnership between Boulton and Watt was formed and solidified;
• Watt, Roebuck and Black started a venture to manufacture alkali;
• Wedgwood built his partnership with Bentley;
• Arkwright started to buy steam engines.
As long as uncertainty was high, ideas and inventions could not be attributed a reliable price.
Markets for inventions did not exist. In such circumstances, such networks nourished ideas
about unfinished inventions until the price mechanism could be applied to them.
Network therefore appear as sets of relationships between individuals (not firms) facing
uncertainty. When uncertainty prevails, attentive inventors tend to form networks to share
and gather useful information that could lead them to a winning combination of factors.
They acquire information, they jointly experiment with others and they enhance their
reputation and build their social capital as they interact with established inventors, investors,
entrepreneurs, etc. Such relationships can be interpreted as repeated transactions where
information is exchanged for free.
105
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter 3. Passion for Experimentation
‘One day when Miss Cunegund went to take a walk in a little neighbouring wood which was called a
park, she saw, through the bushes, the sage Doctor Pangloss giving a lecture in experimental
philosophy to her mother’s chambermaid, a little brown wench, very pretty, and very tractable. As
Miss Cunegund had a great disposition for the sciences, she observed with the utmost attention the
experiments, which were repeated before her eyes; she perfectly well understood the force of the
doctor’s reasoning upon causes and effects. She retired greatly flurried, quite pensive and filled with
the desire of knowledge, imagining that she might be a sufficing reason for young Candide, and he
for her.’
Voltaire, Candide
The late 18th century in Britain witnessed an intensification of inventive activities as
measured by the number of patents registered (see figure 1). The core proposal of this third
chapter is that, during this period, a widespread passion for Experimentation stimulated the
development of a new set of norms, incentives, and organisational structures that led
economic agents to develop a preference for business activities and investments that
involved experiments and inventive activities.
106
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Figure 1: Number of patents registered per annum (Source: Mcleod, 1988)
Institutional economics suggests that institutional arrangements can impact the economic
evolution of a region, country or group of countries (North, 2005; Eggertsson, 1990).
Institutions consist of formal and informal rules that offer incentives and impact the choice
of individuals (North, 1990; Williamson, 2000). Formal rules, such as constitutions, laws and
property rights, are the results of the exercise of power and a cumulative change process.
Rules embedded in customs and cultures tend to remain in place for long periods of time;
changes in informal rules tend to occur gradually. Different governance mechanisms ensure
the coordination of human activities in market economies. The market and the firm are the
most classic forms of governance. Other forms of governance such as alliances,
collaborations and networks have been extensively studied over the past decades. Such
governance mechanisms are supported by the institutional environment that surrounds
them. Individuals, through their choices and actions, provide the fundamental input for the
governance mechanisms to operate effectively. They also influence the institutional
environment over time. The behaviours, skills and knowledge that pay off appear as a
function of the incentive structure inherent in the institutions (North, 2005).
The widespread interest for balloons during the late 18th century is first presented as an
illustration of the growing public interest for Experimentation (Section I). Then, the inter-
relationships between Experimentation and entertainment (Section 2) and the account of
107
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the life and work of Joseph Priestly (Section 3) will contribute to demonstrate that
Experimentation became a common denominator to many social fields such as art, religion,
education and politics.
Section I. Balloons, igniting a passion for Experimentation
The analysis of the causes of the intensification of inventive activities during the second part
of the 18th century starts in France with the invention of the balloon by the Brothers
Montgolfier, Joseph and Etienne, the sons of a wealthy paper manufacturer.
The aim here is not to look at the inventive abilities of the brothers Montgolfier but to
understand how the contemporaries of the two brothers reacted to such inventions. Like
no other discovery, the balloon captured the imagination of the people of that time and
contributed to inspire interest for Experimentation. In this regard, the most relevant events
took place in the year 1783, with the first public demonstrations of balloons in France.
After some successful attempts in Annonay, their home town, the two brothers organised a
demonstration at the Court of Louis XVI, in Versailles. Because it was the biggest balloon
they had ever made, the demonstration was in itself a daring experiment. As a matter of
fact, the balloon they had built did not resist an early trial due to the rain. A new balloon of
1,400 m3, 400kg and shaped as a sphere was built in five days. As expected, on 19
September 1783, it took its ascent in front of Louis XVI, with a sheep, a duck and a cockerel
as passengers. The balloon reached 500 meters and flew eight minutes over three and a half
kilometres. This first success made a strong impression on many of the people present at
the Court, including the Queen of France who used her influence to permit the first human
flight. It took place on 21 November with Pilatre de Rozier on board. They flew nine
kilometres over Paris. Pilatre de Rozier later died dramatically during an attempt to cross
the channel in a balloon from France to England. The brothers pursued their experiments in
Paris, Lyon and other towns, rallying passionate crowds every time. In December 1783, the
two brothers were appointed at the French ‘Académie des Sciences’ and were knighted in
April 1784. Their motto was ‘Sic itur ad astra’ (‘this is how one can reach the sky’). Following
the first flight of the Montgolfier brothers, a popular interest rapidly spread in France and
108
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

beyond. Everyone, poor or rich, educated or not, saw in the balloon an exciting sign of the
time.
Poets celebrated the events, for instance, Gudin de Brenellerie (Anglade, 1990) wrote:
‘Montgolfier taught us how to create a cloud.
His surprising genius, as bold as wise
Under an immense sail locking up the steam,
By its ability, destroys heaviness.
Our audacity, soon will know how to use it
We will subdue the air, the mobile element…’
The sheep, the hen and the duck, the three passengers of the first flight instantly inspired
artists and singers. Engravings commemorated their adventure. Chairs and clocks were
designed with balloon as ornaments. Less affluent people could buy crockery decorated with
naive pictures of balloons. Marion (2004) described this wide interest: ‘(B)alloon mania was
manifested in a thousand and one ways. It swept through arts and literature, even everyday life.
One had merely to claim that an object was ‘au ballon’ (in the balloon style) for sales to increase.
Ceramics are a perfect example. Often inexpensive plates and teapots enabled people of all classes
to own a tangible souvenir of the great invention.’ Newspapers all around Europe reported the
first flights. People from all walks of life were fascinated by the balloons. Horace Walpole
wrote: ‘(B)alloons occupy senators, philosophers, ladies, everybody’ (Keen, 2006).
Even though the balloon ended up being a pretty useless invention, many applications were
foreseen and formed the subject of discussion between people: it could help to explore new
parts of the world and to bring back some bird’s eye views of their scenery. It could help
prisoners to escape from prison, it could help physicists to understand natural phenomenon
such as lightning and clouds. It could help to draw the map of cities and kingdoms. It could
help generals to conduct wars. It could help the police to carry on the secret service, etc. In
1784, balloons were built with unexpected shapes, such as a barrel of whisky, a sausage,
bottles, etc. (Anglade, 1990).
109
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Carlyle 55 (Keen, 2006) saw the balloon as a symbol of this period. He wrote ‘the beautiful
invention; mounting heaven ward, so beautiful, so unguidably! Emblem of much and of our Age of
Hope itself’. This is also perfectly illustrated by the story reported by Marion (2004) about
the Marechal Villeroi: ‘an octogenarian and an invalid, was conducted to one of the windows of
the Tuileries, almost by force, for he did not believe in balloons. The balloon, meanwhile, detached
itself from its moorings; the physician Charles, seated in the car, gaily saluted the public, and was
then majestically launched into space in his air-boat; and at once the old Marechal, beholding this,
passed suddenly from unbelief to perfect faith in aerostatics and in the capacity of the human mind,
fell on his knees, and, with his eyes bathed in tears, moaned out pitifully the words, ‘Yes, it is fixed!
It is certain! They will find out the secret of avoiding death; but it will be after I am gone!’’.
The balloon contributed to a passion for Experimentation and ignited the belief that many
things were possible. The story of the balloon is emblematic of this period of history.
Experiments were attempts to reach what was not reachable before, demonstrations of the
wonders of nature mastered by men caught the attention of everyone in society. New was
good and Experimentation was the way to get there. This example shows how
Experimentation and popular enthusiasm could blend together and raise the hopes placed in
inventive activities. But balloons were not the sole invention that captured the minds of
people
Section II. Experimentation and entertainment
Mechanical wonders and the magic of electricity were common sources of entertainment
throughout the 18th century. Experiments became demonstrations and demonstrations
turned out to be entertaining for all people. Hauksbee, an assistant of Bacon, the
philosopher, developed in 1706 a machine with a wheel and globe where, after some time
turning the wheel, an electric light would start to shine and flashes would start to spark
across the globe of glass. Luminosity created a mysterious atmosphere that delighted many.
55
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)was a British historian and essayist who wrote about the French revolution.
110
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

After the discovery of the Leyden jar 56 by Pieter van Musschenbroek in 1745, Nollet, a
French scientist, arranged some spectacular demonstrations of its power at the Court in
France. He gave a shock to 180 royal guards and, later, joined 700 monks in a circle to a
Leyden jar leading to a surprising effect for both the monks and the public.
The wide interest in electricity encouraged lecturers and instrument makers to follow on
that road. Those itinerant teachers travelled across Europe and offered lectures for both
the learned and the uneducated. Hochadel described the content of the lessons of one of
them, Giacomo Bianchi: ‘(a) report of his activities in Swabia from 1759 mentions the following
phenomena: a one-foot-long electrical spark can be drawn from the machine, an entire deck of
cards as well as six eggs can be struck through, several animals are killed, butter, oil as well as
gunpowder can be ignited, different metals can be melted. The list seems endless and there is
hardly one trick missing which had made electricity so popular in the 1740’s: the electric chime, the
beatification, which makes the hair of a person ‘glow’, the electric spider and so on and so forth.’
Such lectures ignited sparks of interest for those who wanted to replicate the wonders of
the masters. Experiments, at that time, had to accept the laws of fashion and the interest for
electricity declined during the 1760’s and the 1770’s, until the medical application of
electricity revived the public interest.
University professors, far from being secured in their position, had to make their classes
enjoyable for their students and to look for patrons. They used experiments to cause the
most seductive effects on both of these audiences. This trend explains the circumstance of
the recruitment of Watt by the University of Edinburgh.
Sometimes, experiments were turned into pure entertainment. Edgeworth, one of the
members of the Lunar Society, attended, for instance, a show in London by the ‘Celebrated
Comus’ that was described as ‘a combination of Magic and Parlour-science’. Together with a
friend, he created a show of his own which won him many acquaintances in London
(Schofield, 1963).
56
Device for storing static electricity discovered accidentally and investigated by the Dutch physicist Pieter van
Musschenbroek of the University of Leiden in 1746.
111
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

It is interesting to note that experiments started to appear on paintings. It was more
specifically the case in the work of Joseph Wright who was closely associated with the Lunar
experimenters but who was not formally part of them. As a painter, he was interested in
light and in the technical practicalities of his art. In 1766, he caused some stir within the
artistic gentry when he presented his painting: ‘A philosopher giving that lecture on the Orerry,
in which a lamp is put in place of the sun’. The philosopher on this painting explains the
functioning of an eclipse, demonstrating therefore the value of experiments and knowledge
in dissipating fears and educating people. The attention of children and adults, of men and
women, seems intense and the painter illustrated that demonstrations and experiments
could attract the interest of all people. In another painting, he represented ‘An experiment on
a bird in the air pump’. He chose there to represent the archetypal instrument used in
experiments at the time: the air pump.
The history of balloons and this description of the relationship between entertainment and
Experimentation help to understand how experiments became of so much interest in the
late 18th century. Many individuals developed an interest in the entertaining nature of
experiments. They also developed the belief that those experiments announced an ‘Age of
Hope’. The aggregation of those individual interests is best described as a ‘passion’, a passion
that contributed to some transformation of the institutional environment of the time.
It is misleading to regard the popularisation of science as an unimportant event compared to
a fantasized development of a noble and academic science. This view has been expressed by
Oliver Hochadel: ‘(t)o say that itinerant lecturers and instrument makers only performed eye-
catching tricks while the institutionali(s)ed scientists did the ‘real’ research would be to misconstrue
the character of eighteenth-century scientific practice. Despite being called ‘the Age of Reason’, the
eighteenth century is a ‘visual culture’. Science, and in particular electricity, was fashionable, not
because it was useful but because it was entertaining. The visual character of a large part of natural
philosophy is not peripheral or negligible but central to its ‘success’, i.e. the widespread public
attention. And therefore a strict dichotomy between the ‘playful’ electricians and the ‘serious’
natural philosophers would be completely misleading. The practice of electricity in academies and
universities is often no less performative than that of itinerant lecturers and instrument makers.’
112
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The study of the life and life-work of Joseph Priestley, a chemist, presents the relationship
between Experimentation and a number of social practices such as education, politics and
religion. Experimentation was a common denominator to social practices in 18th century
Britain.
Section III. Experimentation, education and religion, the
figure of Joseph Priestley
The following analysis shows how Experimentation made its way in some of the social
practices that constituted the institutional environment, such as the political, the religious
and the educational arena. In order to do this, along with generic evidences, the life of
Joseph Priestley, one of the inventors of chemistry seems particularly appropriate to
enhance the understanding of such phenomenon.
During his youth, following a popular path similar to the one of Josiah Wedgwood or
Erasmus Darwin, experimenting was a source of entertainment for Joseph Priestley. His
brother told the story that he used to put spiders in bottles to see how long they would live
(Uglow, 2002). When he grew older, Priestley became a precursor of modern chemistry, a
polemist, a priest and a teacher at the same time. Experimentation was at the core of all of
those activities.
As a man of experiments, even more than as a man of science, he wrote a history of
electricity. He chose to write a history as it was best suited to arouse ‘sublime emotions’
(Uglow, 2002). He wanted to show that no genius was required to experiment in an
attempt to convince many to try. He often insisted on the accidental nature of discovery for
the same purpose. This also reinforced the providential nature of discoveries. He
experimented with water and gas and was recognised as a pioneer of modern chemistry. He
insisted that experimental apparatus should be kept inexpensive and easy so many people
could use them. He opposed Lavoisier, the French chemist, on the grounds, that he was not
adhering to such principles. He opposed what he called speculative theories: ‘speculation is a
113
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

cheap commodity. New and important facts are most wanted and therefore of most value’
(Golinski, 1992).
As a teacher, Priestley offered courses at Warrington, a dissenting academy. He bought
scientific instruments, such as an air pump and an electrical machine. He taught his students,
boys and girls, to use them, to maintain them and to entertain their family with them.
According to him, the result was that he ‘considerably extended the reputation of (his) school’
(Uglow, 2002). Courses were also opened for the local population. Many itinerant lecturers
incorporated the experiments he had described in his books in their performances. Before
him, chemistry was not part of such curriculum. He advocated a liberal education that would
give significant room to experiments. This was, in his eyes, a means to improve business.
As a man of religion, he started as a dissenting preacher in Suffolk. He saw science as a
means to understand the working of the divine providence in nature. He belonged to the
Unitarian church. His religious views were intimately mixed with his views in politics. For
example, he preached: ‘(l)et all the friends of liberty and human nature join to free the minds of
men from the shackles on narrow and impolitic laws. Let us be free ourselves, and leave the
blessings of freedom to our posterity’ (Uglow, 2002).
As a polemist, he was an enthusiast, he expressed his belief with grandiose terms: ‘(t)he
morning is upon us and we cannot doubt that the light will increase, and extend itself more and
more into the perfect day.’ His vision of the future was supported by the belief that
experimenting with electricity or chemistry would unleash humans from their chains,
allowing them to question the authority of the traditional and corrupted powers that
reigned at this time: the political system and the Church. He promoted emancipation and
social progress. He supported the French revolution and wrote some political pamphlets
that led him to be seen as an insurgent. When his house near Birmingham was destroyed, he
moved to London. He had, in the end, to leave for America, where he retired.
114
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Priestley is not a ubiquitous case, the Unitarian church 57 was highly supportive of political
transformation and saw Experimentation as a means for emancipation. Dissenters mainly
came from the middle-class involved in commerce, industry or finance.
Josiah Wedgwood’s grandfather was a Unitarian minister. Unitarians believed that
knowledge based upon reason and experiment was preferable to dogma. Unitarians believed
in free enquiry, free worship and voluntary prayers. Another emblematic example is
Reverend William Willet, who preached at Newcastle-under-Lyme. He was of the view that
the truth about God’s creation was to be found through experimental practices. The
reverend pursued the development of improved telescopic lenses. His adage was ‘Invention
without Experiment signifys very little.’ He later married Josiah Wedgwood’s sister. Wedgwood
borrowed books on chemistry from him. Methodists also had an interest in
Experimentation. John Wesley was spreading around his religion from one village to
another, throughout America and England. He had written ‘Electricity made plain and useful’, a
summary of Benjamin Franklin’s discoveries. Dissenting academies stressed natural
philosophy and opposed traditional education that was promoting the classics, literature,
theology and other established disciplines.
-------------------------------------------------------
Closing remarks on Experimentation and institutional
transformation
The interest for experiments had started at the royal courts across Europe. It offered many
opportunities for scientists to pursue their work as long as they would amaze the nobility.
The success of scientific demonstrations and experiments gained ground well beyond the
courts of Europe. Many people wanted to see the wonders of electricity and of the balloons
that could reach the sky. This passion for Experimentation grabbed people’s mind in
countries like France and Britain. It was grounded in the preferences of individuals, in their
57
This church had dissented from the Church of England. In England, Unitarianism got off to a bad start. Most
notable is John Bidle (1615-1662), who looked to reason, rather than tradition, for guidance and ended up dying
in prison where others like him were burned.
115
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

knack for amazement and, at the same time, stimulated their interest for new phenomena. It
made people believe that what still appeared as impossible could soon become a reality.
Experimentation was entertaining, educational and stimulated optimism.
Individuals like Priestley promoted together Experimentation as part of religious, educational
and political activities. Art started to represent experiments, university professors used
experiments to attract students. Many clubs and network of inventors, such as the Lunar
Society, were collective arrangements that contributed to the diffusion of new knowledge
and ideas while they also promoted Experimentation. The institutional environment of the
time was transformed, new attitudes emerged and people saw Experimentation as a
practical way of addressing the challenges they encountered.
Protestant and dissenters provided many first generation entrepreneurs and inventors.
Hagen (1962), Jeremy (1988, 1998), Bergoff (1995) and Merton (1938), also found that
puritans and dissenters tended to be overrepresented in the Royal Society. Following the
thesis of Weber (1905), it led scholars to see a link between the religious values of
Protestantism and the spirit of capitalism. This can also be interpreted differently in the light
of the present analysis. The passion for Experimentation reached people from many
different backgrounds and origins in Britain but the Protestants and dissenters, more than
any other group, integrated Experimentation in their education, religion and political
activities. This passion stimulated the development of a new set of norms, incentives, and
collective arrangements that were even more significant for people from this religious
obedience. As a consequence, many economic agents developed a preference for
occupations and investments that involved pursuing experiments and inventive activities. In
this context, the intensification of inventive activities was the result of a much wider number
of individuals who used Experimentation as an approach to guide their decision. It was the
outcome of a passion for Experimentation that had created an incentive for people to
embrace and support inventive activities.
Douglas North remarked that ‘institutions reduce uncertainty by providing a structure to everyday
life’ (North, 1990). The case studied here is a perfect illustration of this as it connects
together uncertainty, Experimentation, the intensification of inventive activities and the
116
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

institutional environment. Economists have paid significant attention to the role of formal
rules provided by the legal environment (Hodgson, 2006). Here, the widespread passion for
Experimentation falls in a different category, informal rules, customs and culture. Yet,
because such a collective passion, together with other forces, have profoundly transformed
the institutional environment of Britain during the late 18th century, it is valuable to
understand how such changes can provide a different set of incentives to people and impact
the preferences of agents.
117
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Part 2. Inventing during the late 19th century in
America
Preliminary Chapter - Overview of the late 19th century
The 18th century saw the development of mechanisms and machines alongside the mastering
of power technologies such as the steam engine. Inventions were the result of many
improvements made by craftsmen as part of their work but some people started to make
their lives revolve around inventive activities. They appeared as a passion for
Experimentation had spread across Europe, people from all walks of life enjoyed the
experimental tricks of the itinerant lecturers. Some of them developed a scientific curiosity
and saw nature as an endless chest full of ideas and resources that could help to emancipate
people and bring them money. This passion encouraged people to defy uncertainty and
some of them started to form networks, such as the Lunar Society in England. Amongst
peers, they exchanged ideas, shared scientific and technical information, they organised
experiments together and, sometimes, they joined forces to persuade other people of the
value of their ideas. The A-E-P triptych helped us to understand how some of those
individuals brought to life new modes of production within the textile industry, steam
engines with multiple applications and a revolution in the pottery business that turned into a
fashion industry serving the rising wealthy class.
The second historical period investigates the inventive practices in America that surrounded
the development of networks such as the train, the telegraph, the telephone or the electric
system. The rail and the telegraph were loosely coupled systems that emerged out of a
machine shop culture thanks to the contribution of many inventive minds and hands. These
large-scale technical systems were fertile soil for the development of large firms. The history
of the railroad industry will provide an interesting testing ground to see if the A-E-P triptych
can help to understand the transformation of an industry structure and, more specifically,
the evolution of the collective arrangements supporting inventive practices. Electricity and
118
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the telephone were tighter systems which needed master architects to develop them. The
career inventors studied in this part dedicated their lives and work to inventive practices.
They haunted the same cities where they could meet with master mechanics, scientists,
lawyers, financiers and businessmen. Some of them established laboratories where their
collaborators worked systematically on their inventive endeavour. They became public
figures and promised to people that the magic of invention would enlighten their life when in
fact technological progress was paving the way for a new kind of war.
The first part studies the individual abilities of three career inventors: Alexander Bell
(Chapter I. Section I), Thomas Edison (Chapter I. Section II) and Elmer Sperry
(Chapter I Section. III). The focus is to be on inventors who pioneered new fields and
brought radical changes; who acted as master architects for new systems, such as the
telephone or electricity, and who saw their inventive endeavour turned into large
businesses. At that time, towns like Boston offered to attentive inventors many information
and resources they needed: libraries, scientific institutions, the expertise of many other
inventors and access to investors. They conducted systematic investigation of patents,
technical and scientific literature and they performed systematic search for appropriate
materials. They enjoyed working on a diversity of projects that cross fertilised each other
and they learned to recognise when to invest in a business field. Experimenting still included
painstaking trial and error. Sometimes, metaphors and analogies acted as guides for
experiments. Finalising an invention often meant systematically testing design parameters in
search for the most efficient solutions. Some inventors created their own laboratory where
teams of experimenters and machinists worked together. To persuade others, they often
simply demonstrated their talents to investors and potential business partners who were
eager to rip some benefits from the transformations at play in America. They used their
eloquence and self-fashioned themselves to become public figures and brands synonym of
magic and progress. The understanding of late 19th century is somehow broad here. The
starting point of this period is the end of the civil war in 1865 and the end point is the
engagement of America in the First World War in 191758.
58 This reasoning follows the logic of Hobsbawm, an Historian who wrote an essay entitled The Age of
Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century in which he suggested the 20th century started with the First World War
(Hobsbawm, 1994).
119
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Alexander Bell is the well known inventor of the telephone. He was chosen as he is a
transition figure between the 18th century inventor, with a curiosity for the gifts of nature,
and the 19th century professional and independent inventor who established large
businesses. More than any other inventor, he illustrates the figure of the inventor who
depended on entrepreneurs and managers to mainstream their work.
Thomas Edison was chosen as he is the archetypal figure of the American industrial
revolution. His contribution goes well beyond the light bulb to cover the whole
electrification process and many other technical and business fields. Edison brought the
division of labour to Experimentation and inventive activities by creating two laboratories:
Menlo Park and the Orange Lab.
Elmer Sperry, with more than 350 patents, is without a doubt a career inventor. He has
been active in a diversity of business and technical fields such as electric lighting, mining
machinery, electric devices for trolley cars, electric automobiles, gyroscopes, gyrocompass,
torpedoes and aeroplane stabilizers. He applied his understanding of electrical and control
systems to this diverse group fields. Sperry was chosen for this reason and because he was a
successful engineer and entrepreneur beyond being a professional inventor.
At the same time, the rail industry was the first sector where large businesses decided to
rely on engineers for routine invention, standardisation and improvement thanks to a
collective arrangement called in the present dissertation ‘inventive hierarchy’. This
transformation occurred during the last thirty years of the 19th century. Its analysis provides
both insights into the functioning of a diversity of collective arrangements and remarkable
perspective on the transformation of an industry throughout history. In this context, A-E-P
triptych will contribute to describe and understand the evolution of the collective
arrangements supporting inventive activities within an industry. This will be an opportunity
to comprehend how it complements the analysis in terms of transaction costs. Seminal
contributions to the economic theory of the firm such as the ones of Knight, Coase and
Williamson will be juxtaposed to the A-E-P triptych in order to interpret the salient facts
observed as part of the transformation of the railroad industry (Chapter 2).
120
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Before studying the three career inventors, some elements of context can help to
characterise the late 19th century in America. Even though America resists a simple and
homogeneous description, three salient facts can be outlined. The country faced a secession
war during the 1860’s. Following the war, the economic system was unified. (1) A
transportation and communication system developed rapidly across the country. The
North-East saw the rapid development of urbanisation while the West acted as a promised
land for an ongoing flow of emigrants coming mainly from Europe. (2) New business
practices emerged with the rise of large firms. The rail, the telegraph, the telephone and
electricity were the emblems of a profound transformation. (3) They were the fruits of what
was called the ‘Yankee ingenuity’, a knack for practical problems in a vibrant and vast new
country.
(1) The development of the transportation system was a necessity in a young, large and
demographically dynamic country it was also economically significant. Roads, canals and
trains contributed to an open market and stimulated the economy. They were widely
supported by governments. The Cumberland road, the first national road, was started in
1811. The Erie Canal was opened in 1825. This was the route connecting the Atlantic
Ocean to the Great Lakes. It was mainly financed by the states themselves. It was both an
engineering and a financial success. The Canal helped New York City to become a major
trading centre. However, roads and canals were going to face fierce competition from a new
mode of transportation, the rail, an emblem of America in the making. Over 100,000 miles
of tracks were laid between 1877 and 1893, therefore doubling the network. On 10 May
1869, at Promontory Utah, the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific lines met, connecting
the Mississippi Valley and the Pacific coast. The Southern States, Chicago were connected
through rail to the rest of the country. The development of a railroad in America was
supported by the state and local authorities which granted land, offered tax concessions and
bought their bonds. Railroad had significant economic impacts. First, the sheer size of the
project itself was economically considerable: railroads needed workers to build and operate
their lines. It also stimulated the production of steel on a large scale. Secondly, such a
network of transport facilitated economic exchanges and growth. The development of the
railroad also led to some institutional harmonisation, such as the adoption of a time zone
121
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

system. The telegraph, a new system of communication, developed along the lines of the
railroads. In 1844, Samuel F. B. Morse created his signalling code for the telegraph. By 1860,
the telegraph connected the country from the Eastern coast to the Mississippi. However
railroad companies were pitiless in exploiting their dominant position: they fixed prices at
their convenience, discriminated among customers and favoured the development of
corruption.
(2) The business practices during this period were transformed by an increasing
specialisation, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation. This was a time when
large firms started to flourish and when the question of monopoly took on a new
significance. The so-called ‘tycoons’, moguls or business barons started to create business
empires and amassed vast financial powers. The railroad sector was the first to see the
emergence of large corporation but it was followed by others. For example, in the oil
sector, Rockefeller organised the Standard Oil Co. by buying out small manufacturers and
integrating them. Andrew Carnegie took a dominant position in the steel business through a
combination of technical advantage and rapid expansion. J.P. Morgan built an empire in
banking and invested in nascent industries. It was often done with the use of a new
organisational form: the trust 59. It was no surprise that this series of business consolidation
resulted in reduced competition and an increase in profits for small groups of shareholders.
If political leaders first adopted a ‘laissez faire’ approach with limited interference in
economic affairs, they started, at the end of the 19th century, to change their views as
pressure groups, small businesses and labour movement started to ask them to intervene.
Here again, the railroad was ahead of other industries with the voting of a law regulating
railroad in 1887, this was the Interstate Commerce Act. This law made it illegal for a
railroad to charge more for a short haul than for a longer one. In 1890, the Sherman Act
was passed to prevent monopoly to control a single industry. It took ten years in order to
use it to break up a monopoly. Under this pressure, trusts, such as Standard Oil, became
holding companies. Anticompetitive behaviour continued to flourish in industry such as
tobacco with the creation of the American Tobacco Company and, in sugar, with the
American Sugar Refining Company. In the meantime, the business barons started to employ
59 In such an organisation, the voting rights of a controlling number of shares of competing firms were gathered
by a small group of men, who could therefore prevent competition among the companies they controlled.
122
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

managers, the ‘visible hand of the capitalist system’ elegantly described by A. Chandler (1977).
The use of the capital necessitated a larger number of workers and larger plants than ever
before. Administrative structure and coordination by managers replaced Adam Smith's
invisible hand and became a core mode of governance of the economic system.
(3) In the 1870’s, government support for engineering and science was limited. It was
dedicated to geological survey and agriculture in order to support the ‘Go West’ movement.
However, only a few universities offered advanced degrees in sciences and engineering.
Most people interested in these fields had to study in Germany. The situation changed over
the years. The Morrill Land-Grant Acts provided land to State colleges 60. It was very much
dedicated to support the agricultural research. Private philanthropy also provided funds to
universities. New educational programmes were offered including doctoral ones. In 1900,
universities graduated hundreds of scientists and engineers. Nevertheless, compared to
Europe, America was not a land of basic science. As part of a young nation in expansion,
Americans were facing very practical challenges and they had to solve problems. The so-
called ‘Yankee ingenuity’ was at work. People who had some interest and aptitude for
technical matters were attracted by those numerous practical issues that needed to be
solved. Transport and communication issues topped the list. The maxim ‘necessity is the
mother of invention’ applies perfectly to the American situation during the 19th century.
Furthermore, the deep interest in inventive practices led to the development of a modern
patent system and, in return, the patent system served the development of inventive
activities. In addition, the realisations of inventors fostered the development of a passion for
invention. American citizens loved and admired their inventors for the new technologies
such as electric lighting or the phonograph. They enjoyed the rising number of articles in the
press that described their work and the new technology that were brought to life by them.
Such a passion for invention stimulated vocations for inventive activities. It can be illustrated
by this quote in which Lincoln, in 1859, celebrated inventions as a true distinctive trait of the
nation: ‘(w)e, here in America, think we discover, and invent, and improve faster than any of (our
predecessor nations) (…). In anciently inhabited countries, the dust of ages – a real downright old-
fogyism – seems to settle upon, and smother the intellects and energies of man. It is in this view
60
The Morrill Act was passed in 1862, it granted each state tracts of land that could be used to finance new
agricultural and mechanical schools.
123
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

that I have mentioned the discovery of America as an event greatly favouring and facilitating useful
discoveries and inventions’ (Usselman, 2002). Finally, inventions fuelled the rise of large
corporations and helped a new class of capitalists to become rich. These business barons
shared the country interest for inventions. They financed inventors and recruited engineers
who came up with promising solutions from which their business could benefit. This
virtuous circle can be summarised in the following figure.
A passion for invention
The multiplication of The rise of large
practical problems Inventive practices systems and
corporations
Efficient patent system
Figure 2: Virtuous cycles of inventive practices during the late 19th century in America
124
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter I. Inventors at the age of large systems
Section I. Alexander Bell
Alexander Graham Bell was born in Edinburgh on 3 March 1847. He is a career inventor
with about 30 individual and collective patents related to telegraphs, telephones, medical
devices, aeronautics, engineering structures, etc. His interests went well beyond the
invention of the telephone, pursuing what he felt would be useful to the world and what he
felt passionate about. All his life, he dedicated his efforts to teaching deaf people how to
speak. His grandfather, father, uncle and brothers were all engaged in work on elocution
and speech. His mother and his wife were deaf.
At the age of 12, Bell showed his knack for inventing. He was playing with the son of a
neighbour who owned a flour mill. The father of his friend asked the two boys to remove
the husk from the wheat, a long and laborious task. Bell built a rudimentary de-husking
machine using rotating paddles and nail brushes (Mackay, 1997). The machine was
subsequently used for a number of years. At the age of 15, Bell moved to London to live
with his widowed grandfather. The older man, with his zeal for education and his belief in
the importance of eloquence, had a major influence on Alexander Bell. At the age of 16,
back in Scotland, he became a teacher of elocution and music at the Weston House
Academy. He studied at the University of Edinburgh and taught in Bath in 1866 and 1867.
During those years, his scientific curiosity for the human voice became his main leisure
pursuit, for example, he joined the Philological Society and took some courses in anatomy
and physiology at the University College in London.
In 1867, Bell’s father published his work on visible speech: a system of symbols that can be
used to represent any sounds the human voice can produce. He had developed it some
years before but kept it secret, hoping to attract some funding from government in order to
diffuse it. His three sons helped him with demonstrations. Finally, Bell’s father did not
125
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

receive the recognition he was eager to get. He was, however, invited to Canada and
America to demonstrate his system.
The same year, Alexander Bell lost his younger brother to tuberculosis and, three years
later, in May 1870, his other brother also died from complications of tuberculosis. The Bell
family decided to move to Canada and to settle in Ontario. There, Alexander Bell learned
the Mohawk language and translated its vocabulary into visible speech. He left for Boston
the year after. His father had been offered a position by Sarah Fuller, Principal of the ‘Boston
School for Deaf Mutes’. He declined the offer and recommended his son. There, Alexander
enjoyed many successes with teaching elocution using visible speech to deaf mutes and he
went on to open his own class in October 1872. Deaf mutes were traditionally considered
stupid by society and the progress Bell helped them to achieve enthused parents and
scholars.
In 1872, Alexander Bell developed the idea that his work on acoustics could lead to a
multiple telegraph that would send numerous messages simultaneously along a single wire.
He progressed with experiments during his leisure time and often late at night. He became
Professor of Vocal Physiology and Elocution at the Boston University School of Oratory. His
time was fully absorbed by the teaching and the experiments he conducted.
In order to keep time for his experiments on his multiple telegraphs 61, Bell decided to
concentrate his efforts on two private students: ‘Georgie’ Sanders, a six-year old boy, son of
a leather merchant and 15-year old Mabel Hubbard. The fathers of the two pupils became
the financial backers and associates of Bell from February 1875 (Grosvenor & Wesson,
1997). Mabel Hubbard became his wife in 1877. Free from other obligations, Bell was able to
concentrate on his experiments and started to employ Thomas Watson, an experienced
mechanical and electrical designer. Experiments went on throughout 1874 and 1875. In June
1875, while working on his multiple telegraph, they discovered that sound could be
transmitted using electric current. They went on and discovered, step by step, the working
principles of the telephone. Bell pursued some inventive work afterwards. In 1879, he came
61
The terminology ‘multiple telegraph’ is used here to refer to the work of Bell. This device is sometimes also
called ‘acoustic telegraph’ or ‘harmonic telegraph’ by historian and biographers.
126
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

up with an audiometer to measure hearing ability. This led to the adoption of his name for a
unit of measure: the decibel. His ‘Photophone’, developed with Charles Tainter,
accomplished a wireless transmission. In 1880, Bell received the Volta Prize from the French
government. He used the money to fund the Volta Laboratory in Washington. In this
laboratory, he developed, together with his cousin Chichester Bell and Charles Tainter, the
‘Graphophone’, a phonograph using wax cylinders. In 1881, Bell worked on a metal detector
following an attempt to assassinate James Garfield, The U.S. president, with a gun. In 1883,
he invented a vacuum jacket following the death of his newborn son.
A patent was issued to Bell on 7 March 1876 and covered ‘the method of, and apparatus for,
transmitting vocal or other sounds telegraphically (…) by causing electrical undulations, similar in
form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sound.’ This was going to be
one of the most money-spinning patent in history and a vastly contested one.
The Bell Telephone Company was created in 1877 and the commercialisation of the
telephone started at a rapid pace. That year, Bell went on honeymoon to Europe. He
demonstrated the telephone to Queen Victoria in England. Back in America, he remained
loosely connected with the business. His main role was to defend the rights of his invention.
As a matter of fact, the company faced legal challenge from Gray 62 and other inventors.
More than 600 litigations, over 12 years were conducted. None of them were lost by Bell
and his associates.
In 1882, Alexander Bell became an American citizen. He and his family shared their time
between Washington and Nova Scotia, in Canada. His interest went well beyond inventive
activities. In 1883, Bell contributed to funding the publication of ‘Science’, a scientific journal.
He was also one of the founding members of the National Geographic Society. He continued
to help the deaf and established the Volta Bureau in 1886 as a centre for studies on the deaf.
In 1990, Bell also founded the American Association to Promote the Teaching of Speech to
62
Gray is an American inventor and contestant with Alexander Bell in a famous legal battle over the invention
of the telephone. On 14 February, 1876, the day that Bell filed an application for a patent for a telephone, Gray
applied for a caveat announcing his intention to file a claim for a patent for the same invention within three
months.
127
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the Deaf. Bell received many honours and awards before he died of pernicious anaemia on 2
August, 1922. Some of his ideas are still debated today 63.
The first part will look at how the Bell family and the city of Boston channelled his attention
towards acoustical problems (A/ Attentiveness: family and city as crucibles of
inventions). Indeed, the most striking fact when studying Alexander Bell’s life and work is
the role of his family, specialists of elocution and speech, son of a deaf mother and the
husband of a deaf wife (1). The city of Boston nourished Bell’s work with all he needed to
bring the telephone to life (2).
Bell had a very strong belief in the value of Experimentation and was ready to learn as much
from failure as from success: ‘(i)n scientific researches, there are no unsuccessful experiments;
every experiment contains a lesson,’ he wrote, ‘(i)f we don’t get the results anticipated and stop
right there, it is the man that is unsuccessful, not the experiment’. In order to develop the
telephone, he used analogies, insights from his work on the multiple telegraphs and a
systematic approach to guide his experimental work. The full spectrum of Experimentation
practices, starting from providential discovery and ending with a quasi-rational or systematic
approach was used (B/ Experimentation: analogies, cross fertilization and
systematic debugging). This will be studied by looking at the different stages of the
development of the telephone from his exploratory work (1) to the optimisation of what
was to become a very successful commercial product (2).
Some inventors persuade others of the value of their work by associating themselves with
prominent partners (C/ Persuasion: prominent partners and occupations). Bell offers
an interesting case as he was himself a prominent figure thanks to his work on visible speech
(1). This provided him access to the scientific institutions of Boston and led him to find his
financial backers. His father-in-law, Hubbard, also played an important role in persuading
others of the value of his inventive work (2). He acted as a financial backer but also paid
special attention to matters related to patents and to the promotion of Bell’s invention.
Finally, Bell turned the demonstration of his invention into a useful but temporary
63 For instance, in 1917, in a paper on the depletion of natural resources, he stated that the unchecked burning
of fossil fuels would lead to a ‘sort of greenhouse effect’ and global warming.
128
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

occupation that paved the way for a commercial success (3). Bell’s theatrical skills served
him to promote the telephone in such a way that it nearly became a business in itself.
Quickly the magic of the telephone attracted the attention of the press and potential users.
A. Attentiveness: family and city as crucibles
1. Family of Bell channelled his attention toward acoustical problems
In February 1879, Bell started to enjoy his nascent wealth. He bought an exemplar of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica with the firm intention to read it from A to Z. In 1992, Johnson’s
encyclopaedia served him as night reading. He eloquently commented on it: ‘my usual night
reading, Johnson encyclopaedia. Find this makes splendid reading matter for night. Articles not too
long – constant change in the subject of thought – always learning something I have not known
before – provocative thoughts – constant variety’ (Bruce, 1973). Bell’s scientific curiosity had
was vast and immensely served his inventive work. Without such a curiosity, the influence of
his family on his inventive work would have been of limited impact. Nevertheless, it was his
family who channelled his attention towards acoustical problems. Surrounded by specialists
of elocution and speech and as the son of a deaf mother and the husband of a deaf wife, one
could imagine that Alexander was guided by destiny in his inventive activities.
Alexander Bell’s father, Melville Bell, was an elocutionist and a speech teacher. He taught
elocution to ministers and children from rich families. He wrote books with the help of his
brother David, and he believed a scientific alphabet could be established to represent all
possible human sounds. Alexander Bell grew in the shadow of his father and older brothers.
In his solitude, he developed an interest for science, Experimentation and technical matters.
When he lived in London, Alexander Bell benefited from the lessons of elocution and
declamation of his grandfather. It was in London, at the age of 19, that Alexander Bell and
his father visited Sir Charles Wheatstone, one of the leading English scientists of that time,
who believed that, one day, it could be possible to articulate speech electrically. He owned
one of the exemplars of Baron de Kempelen’s speaking machine and, before lending
Alexander Bell a copy of the Baron’s book describing the machine, he offered the father and
the son the opportunity to listen to it. After this visit, Bell’s father suggested to him and his
129
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

brother to conceive a speaking machine. This machine ended up saying ‘Mama’ but, most
importantly, Bell, probed by his father, was starting to perform scientific investigations on
how speech was produced by human organs.
In 1864, Melville Bell had developed his universal alphabet. He taught the system to his three
sons who were able to demonstrate that ‘visible speech’ was suitable to transcribe languages
such as Arabic, Hindi or Urdu. ‘Visible speech’ started to gain Melville Bell a reputation in
America. He declared in the press that he hoped for ‘acoustic and articulative principles be
developed, which could lead to mechanical invention no less wonderful and useful than those in
optics’ (Bruce, 1973). Melville Bell encouraged by his brother David, opted for a lecture tour
in America. During this trip, Melville Bell started to describe the early success of his son
Alexander with deaf children. It was this trip to America that led to the establishment of the
family in Canada.
Alexander Bell was also influenced by his deaf mother who played piano helped by her ear
tube. In his youth, Alexander became an excellent pianist and was encouraged by his mother
who hired a renowned pianist to give him lessons. Years later, when he was still in England,
Alexander Bell developed the idea of an electric piano combining electromagnets, pitchforks
and the principle of resonance. He did not turn this idea into a practical device. However,
with his understanding of the telegraph he could see that ‘not only could a chord be
transmitted over a single wire and unscrambled at the other end, but also a number of
simultaneous Morse code messages sent in different pitches. His mind was hovering about the idea
of a multiple telegraph, of a kind that would be called ‘harmonic’’ (Bruce, 1973).
If it was Bell’s curiosity and his inquisitiveness that helped him to gather the many valuable
hints he needed, it is without a doubt Alexander Bell’s family who engaged him during his
time in Scotland and England on the right trail to invent the telephone. The following words
written much later by his wife outline a portrait of an attentive inventor: ‘(W)hat a man my
husband is! I am perfectly bewildered at the number and size of ideas with which his head is
crammed… Flying machines to which telephones and torpedoes are to be attached occupy the first
place just now from the observation of sea gulls… Every now and then he comes out with ‘the flying
machine has quite changed its shape in a quarter of an hour’ or ‘the cigar-shape is dismissed to the
130
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

limbo of useless things’. Then he goes climbing about the rocks and forming theories on the origin of
cliffs and cave… then he comes home and watches sugar bubbles’ (Bruce, 1973).
It was in England that Bell started to explore acoustical phenomenon and to enrich his
knowledge of electricity by using telegraphic instruments. However, it was America, and
more specifically Boston, that offered him the resources and people he needed to invent the
telephone.
2. Boston’s inventive environment: people and libraries
Alexander Bell always enjoyed participating in scientific circles even though he could not
actively take part in all the ones of which he was a member. Later in his life, when he lived in
Washington, he was an assiduous member of the National Academy of Science and the
regent of the Smithsonian Institution. He organised Wednesday’s dinners where men of
science were invited to debate and discuss recent developments. This interest from Bell for
societies was not a late hobby of an established patriarch. Boston with its institutions,
scientific circles and libraries played a fundamental role in the birth of the telephone.
When Alexander Bell arrived in Boston, he discovered the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (M.I.T.). An acquaintance of his father, Professor Monroe, gave him a copy of
the latest book on sound of a prominent scientific figure: Tyndall. Bell read his other books
at the public library and attended his lectures at the university. This was where he first
heard about the undulatory theory of light propagation which he used for his work on the
telephone. Soon after he arrived in Boston, he also joined the Social Science Association,
visited a number of public exhibitions and attended lectures on experimental mechanics at
the M.I.T.
His neighbour, Percival Richards had, like many people in America, an interest in electricity.
When Alexander Bell started to work on a multiple telegraph by replicating Helmholtz
experimental equipments, Richards encouraged him and sometimes helped him with
practical tasks as Bell was too clumsy for the programme of work he had assigned to
himself.
131
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

By pioneering the use of visible speech with deaf children, Alexander Bell gained a
professorship in Boston. He commented that this ‘has at once placed me in a new position in
Boston. It has brought me into contact with the scientific minds of the city’ (Bruce, 1973). This was
also his entry ticket to experiment with Helmholtz equipment. As part of the M.I.T.
equipment, he discovered the ‘Phonautograph’ of a Frenchman called Scott, an apparatus with
a large wooden cone in which one could speak and transform a sound into a drawing using a
membrane diaphragm. He also discovered the ‘Manometric flame’ of Koenig, another
Frenchman, in which a membrane fluctuated depending on the sound emitted. Bell saw this
as a potential help to teach visible speech and experimenting with this idea brought him very
close to the working principle of the phonograph that was later invented by Edison.
At the public library of Boylston Street, the largest in America, Bell discovered the book of
Baile: ‘The wonders of Electricity’. This is where he got the idea to replace the pitchfork he
used in his experiments with some steel reed which gave him the possibility to adjust and
tune the pitch. The book also foresaw something that certainly encouraged Bell to pursue
his ideas, Baile had concluded that: ‘(h)ence it should be possible to transmit as many musical
tones simultaneously through a wire as through the air’(Grosvernor & Wesson, 1997).
Bell also started some joint investigation of the human ear together with Blake, a specialist
of the subject. They used the temporal bones of bodies from the medical school. Later,
Blake re-assured Bell that his ideas were valid from an acoustic point of view, it helped him
concentrate on his mechanical work. Blake was also the one who saved the sketches of the
harp apparatus, an early concept of the telephone which proved important in later legal
matters. All those encounters, books and equipment gave him some hints that proved useful
in conceiving the telephone and, more specifically, a key milestone in his thinking process,
the harp apparatus.
In 1874, as Bell felt threatened by the progress of Gray, his rival, he asked his former
neighbour Percival Richards to write down his recollection of his work a year before to
keep a testimony of his ideas and achievements at that time. He consulted Professor
132
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Lovering from Harvard and Moses Farmer, a Boston inventor 64. They saw nothing wrong
with the ideas and theories of Alexander Bell. However, Farmer thought that turning those
into practice would take years and that it would be better to publish his results in a
scientific magazine. It led Bell to put aside his work on the telephone in order to
concentrate on the multiple telegraphs. However, Henry, a scientist from Washington who
had bad recollection of the time he let Samuel Morse developed his idea on the telegraph,
convinced him not to publish but to pursue his work until he had a workable device 65.
When Bell said he did not have the electrical knowledge, Henry replied to him ‘Get it’. Bell
subsequently wrote to his parents: ‘I cannot tell you how much these two words have
encouraged me’ (Bruce, 1973).
Shortly after this event, Professor Monroe gave him a year’s advance for his lectures. The
Boston’s and the Washington’s networks of scientists and inventors were not only a source
of valuable information, it was also a place where Bell could get advice as well as moral and
financial support. Bell also met in Boston his two financial backers, Hubbard and Sanders,
who enabled him to concentrate on his experiments.
B. Experimentation: analogies, cross-fertilisation and systematic
debugging
1. From the multiple telegraph to the telephone
We saw previously how Bell’s family was instrumental in initiating his curiosity for acoustic
phenomena. His first experiment was conducted together with his brother Melly, following
the challenge given by their father to create a speaking machine. In England, Bell, surrounded
by his family and friends, made his early attempts to use an experimental approach which
proved to be a first step towards Bell’s future inventive activities. It brought him some of
the skills and knowledge he needed, it strengthened his determination and his knack for
playful Experimentation.
64. Farmer also recommended Thomas Watson to Bell. He was a young man working for Charles Williams,
who made, with his 25 employees, electrical devices in his machine shop. He started to work on the basis of a
paid assignment for Bell before joining him on a full time basis.
133
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

When he left England for America, Bell had the multiple telegraphs and the electric piano in
mind, which served as powerful analogies that guided Bell in the right direction. Bell’s
experiments led to the invention of the telephone picture inventive activities as a series of
paths that are explored, abandoned, re-explored and, sometimes, end up being conclusive.
They also show how different streams of inventive work, such as the multiple telegraphs and
the telephone, can cross-fertilize each other. The telephone and the multiple telegraphs
were some kind of twin brothers sharing some basic features but with different applications.
They were conceived by Bell simultaneously. One could see here Bell’s difficulty to take
decisions and to focus on a single invention but the two streams of inventive activities
nourished each other with ideas, insights and experimental plots. Moreover, Bell could jump
from one to another as he felt he had bumped into a dead end. He could temporarily take
away his mind from one problem and explore the other one in the meantime.
At the end of 1873, Bell focused his effort on steel reed rheotomes, current-interrupters
based on Helmholtz idea. By connecting two rheotomes and two receivers using a wire, Bell
assembled his first prototype of a multiple telegraph. The first transmitter worked well but
not the second one. As he was trying to find the origin of the failure, he pressed his ear
against the transmitter. He noticed a noise that was the first telephonic one (Bruce, 1973).
However, he was looking for something else. He noted it in his notebook and pursued his
investigation. After some efforts, he concluded that the fundamental principle of the multiple
telegraphs had been experimentally validated.
The next step was to develop a similar equipment but with multiple stations. To make it
possible, he had the idea to use an induction current between the stations and the main
lines. After some further reflection, he felt he had reached a dead end and stepped back. He
had to develop a new transmitter. He foresaw the possibility of using a receiver as a
transmitter but, eventually, discarded this idea which would have brought him very close to
the telephone. He went back to the idea of developing a battery powered current which
appeared to him as the most promising working solution for the multiple telegraphs.
However, shortly after this, his mind was dragged again into acoustic issues, as he had just
discovered the Phonautograph and the Manometric flame. He also started his collaboration
134
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

on the human ear with Blake. He created a Phonautograph using for a membrane an ear
taken from a dead body 66.
Having worked on his multiple telegraphs and having furthered his understanding of the
human ear, the practical scheme of a telephone came to his mind. He looked back at the
idea of induced current and conceived the harp apparatus which was never realised in
practice for lack of skills and equipment. Mid-1874, he came back to the multiple telegraphs
which he considered a much simpler scheme that he could pursue.
Early 1875, Thomas Watson started to help Bell by making several reel-spring rheotome of
a new design. A problem of oxidation delayed the final prototype. Experimenting provides
many long and strenuous periods of problem fighting and tinkering 67. This prototype was
presented to William Orton, President of the Western Unions. Following this, it was
decided that it was time to file three patents.
As Bell was supposed to refine his multiple telegraphs, he could not prevent his mind from
going back to what he called ‘electric speech’. In May 1875 Bell came up with the idea of using
a variable resistance. The day after, together with Watson, they were experimenting with
this idea without success.
The next step they took was to make a diaphragm instrument. However, they continued to
improve the multiple telegraphs in parallel. They focused their efforts on the practical
enhancement of parts that could benefit both devices. On July 2, 1875,, they succeeded in
transmitting unintelligible sound across a house. That night, Bell wrote to his father: ‘(T)his
afternoon on singing in front of a stretched membrane attached to the armature of an electro-
magnet – the varying pitch of the voice was plainly discernible at the other end of the line (300ft)
no battery, nor permanent magnet being employed(…). When the sounds are received upon
another stretched membrane – instead of a steel spring which can only vibrate to certain pitches –
66 He observed that ‘the sound waves acting on a tiny membrane of the eardrum could move relatively heavy
bones. This led him to speculate that sound waves themselves might be strong enough to generate an
appreciable current’ (Mackay, 1997).
67 He wrote to his parents ‘I trust you may never know the agony I endured all night and yesterday’ (Mackay,
1997).
135
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

it is highly probable that the ‘timbre’ of the voice may be perceived. I feel that I am on the threshold
of a great discovery’ (Grosvenor & Wesson, 1997). This letter is considered to be the birth
certificate of the telephone.
2. The last mile can be the hardest one
Validating a technical concept is very different from having a marketable product. Bell still
had many hours of work in front of him before reaching that stage. First, he wanted to
eliminate the sparking of intermittent current contacts without using a condenser. He did
not remain happy for long with his achievements, as a patent challenge from Gray brought
his moral down. He also started to believe that Western Union spies could be after his
work. It was time for experiments to be resumed. He pursued some debugging and fine
tuning work on his multiple telegraphs, testing various combinations of armature, cells and
circuits. He turned the manometric flame into an instrument to measure the
electromagnetic effect of undulatory current (Bruce, 1973).
In March 1876, he started to use a dish of water as proposed in his spark arrester
specification. He noticed a faint sound. As he was adding acid to the water, the sound
became louder. He also substituted the tuning fork by a hand bell, it was the only applicable
device he had at hand. He discovered that resistance should be varied by varying the area of
contact. He sketched some drawings with a needle dipping in the liquid. After refining the
experimental apparatus, he tried it with Watson. He reported in his notebook: ‘I then
shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence ‘Mr Watson – Come here – I want to see
you.’ To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said’ (Bruce,
1973). This was the first audible discussion using a telephone.
Unfortunately, not all sound was easily recognisable yet. Stronger current led to gas bubbles
in the acid and black deposit on the needle called for regular cleaning. More trials allowed
him limited progress. He then stopped this trial and error approach and started to theorize
about the problem. He used graph and calculations. The solution that was used a few years
later across the nascent industry was in front of him but he was not confident in his
theorizing ability (Bruce, 1973). He explored alternative solutions, came up with a practical
136
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

application after going through days of fruitless experiments. He finally achieved some
success in May after many more trials, observation and some surprises. His telephone was
now based on what was called a ‘double pole magneto transmitter’ and a simple reed receiver.
At this stage, both vowel and consonants could be heard distinctly.
He left his experimental work to demonstrate his work at the Philadelphia International
exhibition which ended up being the start of fame for the telephone. It was now time to test
the telephone over distance which he did in Canada over five and, then, eight miles. Watson
joined Bell on a full time basis and was offered, on top of his salary, a 10% share in Bell’s
patent. Bell reviewed his notebook and found an idea that had been left aside untried. It
suggested applying a large metal disk on the transmitter membrane. The trial was a success.
In October, Bell and Watson had the first phone conversation in history. Bell wrote: ‘the
utterance was perfectly distinct (…). If we can only keep it always so our fortunes are made. The
success (peculiarly) of telegraphy (that is, telephony) is no longer an uncertainty. I know that my
fortune is in my own hands. I know that complete and perfect success is close at hand’ (Bruce,
1973). A stern contrast with the letter he had a few months before.
Now, it was a matter of fine tuning the telephone. They embarked on a highly systematic
approach to Experimentation, varying each part while keeping the others constant. They
debugged the phone step by step, eliminating defects as they were discovered. As part of
this effort, Bell re-considered the variable resistance method that was going to be the
standard a few years after but he abandoned it again.
Bell’s approach to Experimentation was very much guided by trial and error logic. These
trials and errors were sometimes close to a pure random exploration, pursuing a promising
idea. Other times, they were more systematic in order to eliminate problems and defects.
The latter approach became more and more important as the development of the
telephone progressed, as uncertainty vanished leaving a strong belief that success was at
hand.
In April 1877, the first regular telephone line was established between the shop and the
house of Charles Williams, who was now manufacturing the telephone for Bell. The first
137
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

‘real’ customer was recorded in May 1877 and income started to arrive the same month. In
July, the first telephone company was established and financial success lay ahead. This was
also the result of Bell’s abilities to persuade others and to surround himself with people
who could help him to do so.
C. Persuasion: prominent occupations and partners
1. Visible speech, visible Bell
Some inventors persuade others of the value of their work by associating themselves with
prominent partners. The case of Bell offers an interesting derivative, as he was himself a
prominent figure thanks to his work on visible speech. It provided him access to the
scientific institutions of Boston and led him to find viable and interested financial bankers.
Visible speech had made Bell a visible man.
Using the system developed by his father: ‘visible speech’, Bell started to teach the deaf how
to speak. At first, his intention was to promote visible speech but quickly helping deaf
people became his main goal. His energy, his enthusiasm and his achievement in the field
rapidly enhanced his reputation in Boston.
However, it was in May 1868 in England that Alexander Bell started to use visible speech to
teach deaf mutes. It was Susanna Hull, who was running a school for deaf children in South
Kensington, who gave him the opportunity. He started with two young girls: Lotty, 6 years
old, and Minna, 8 years old, soon joined by Kate and Nelly, both 8 years old. Using a picture
of the face and of the different body parts playing a role in speech, Bell helped them to
master a few sounds after the first lesson. After their fifth lesson, they all knew all
consonants and some of the vowels. At the age of 21, Alexander Bell’s reputation for
teaching deaf children spread rapidly and enquiries started to be addressed to the school.
In 1871, teaching visible speech attracted Alexander Bell in Boston. He started with 30
children at the public school for deaf mutes where Sarah Fuller acted as Principal. The first
attempts brought magnificent results that deeply impressed the governing committee of the
138
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

school 68. The Boston Journal reported on the event. More newspaper reports were
published, Bell addressed the American Social Science Association and wrote an article in
the American Annals of the deaf and dumb which continued to spread the word about visible
speech and the achievements of Bell. In March 1872, accounts of his work had been
reported in the national press. The Japanese commissioner for education visited Bell who
convinced him of the value of the system for the Japanese language. Bell also established his
own school in October that year.
In 1873, Bell was offered the professorship of ‘Vocal physiology and elocution’ at the Boston
university by Professor Monroe. It gave him access to the academic circles and the
experimental equipments of the university. In January 1874, a convention of sixty visible
speech teachers was organised. Bell gave the principal lecture. It was also decided to start a
periodical, ‘the visible speech pioneer’. Finally, he was invited to lecture at the M.I.T., an entry
ticket to mingle with the finest scientific elite of Boston.
In October of that year, he was offered to teach Georgie Sanders in Salem in return for a
free board and lodging. Bell shared his idea about multiple telegraphs with Thomas Sanders,
the father of Georgie, who had a profitable leather business. Sanders offered to support
Bell’s experimental work financially. During the same month, Bell met Mabel Hubbard, who
had just come back from Europe, and who was to become Bell’s new pupil. Bell was invited
to her parent’s house; he played the piano and asked if they knew that a piano could repeat
a note sung into it. Within minutes, Bell and Gardiner Hubbard, the father of Mabel, were
feverishly discussing the multiple telegraphs. Hubbard was one of the most anxious people in
America looking for a workable multiple telegraphs.
Bell was now a ‘visible man’ in Boston. This led him to interact with the elite of Boston and,
therefore, to secure funding for his experimental work. Bell had gained a reputation in a
different field than telegraphy and telephony, it helped him to further his cause and, in the
end, to gain a partner that was to play an important role in the invention of the telephone:
Gardiner Hubbard.
68 The superintendent of Boston schools found the results ‘more than satisfactory, they are wonderful’ and that
‘(T)he system must speedily revolutioni(z)e the teaching in all articulating deaf-mute school’ (Bruce, 1973).
139
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

2. Family business: the prominent father-in-law
Gardiner Hubbard was not just a financial backer. He became Alexander Bell’s father-in-law.
He was the strongest advocate of Bell’s multiple telegraph and oversaw patent issues. He
dealt with the establishment of the Bell Telephone company. He was the one who saw the
benefit of associating Bell’s name to the company. He later had the great idea to recruit
Theodore Vail who ran the company successfully for many years. All along the development
of the multiple telegraphs and the telephone, he urged Bell to focus his efforts on the
telegraph. But he backed up the telephone as soon as he understood its potential.
As a lawyer, he used his talent and his acquaintance with patent and to protect Bell’s
inventions. Because of potential litigation, he advised Bell to write down every experiment
conducted and to send them to him the notes dated and signed. He also suggested
withdrawing a caveat Bell had drafted. Gray had already submitted a draft patent and the
caveat would only alert him of Bell’s progress without giving any protection to Bell. All legal
battles were later handled by Hubbard’s patent attorneys.
Hubbard, the thorough businessman, saw an inventor like Bell as someone who tended to
procrastinate. He wanted him to abandon teaching visible speech but Bell resisted. Hubbard,
without consulting Bell, decided to file a patent on undulatory-current and telephone
application on 14 February 1876, a few hours before Gray filed a caveat for a speaking
telephone on the liquid variable resistance principle.
Hubbard also organised the demonstration of Bell’s telegraph to William Orton, President
of the Western Union, the main telegraph company in America. The demonstration was a
success. But when Bell met him again in New York, Orton did not show any interest. He
had held promising exchanges with Gray and did not want an association with Hubbard, his
rival.
Hubbard had organized, using his acquaintances, other demonstrations including five
Harvard Professors and Pickering from the M.I.T. and wanted Bell to demonstrate his
140
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

telephone at the Philadelphia International Exhibition. This exhibition was going to be the
most astonishing exhibition that ever took place in America and nearly every American
knew about it. Hubbard was part of the committee on Massachusetts’ education and
science. Visible speech had its place on the stand and some space was reserved for Bell’s
telephone and telegraph. Hubbard insisted that Bell join to meet the jury of the exhibition
electrical entry. But Bell was busy with his visible speech teaching engagement. Hubbard
insisted and even used his daughter to persuade Bell to join. Hubbard installed Bell in the
hotel where the judges were staying. The highlight of the exhibition for Bell was his
demonstration of the telephone to the Emperor of Brazil, Dom Pedro, and the judges. Bell
explained his telegraph and they played with it. After, he explained the ondulatory theory
and offered them to try the transmission of human voice. It was the start of Bell’s career as
a demonstrator of the telephone.
Bell had written what happened then to his parents: ‘I stated however that this was ‘an
invention in embryo.’ I trusted that they would recognise firstly that the pitch of the voice was
audible and secondly that there was an effect of articulation. I then went into a distant room and
sang into the telephone. Willie Hubbard told me what happened. Sir William listened and heard my
voice distinctly. I then articulated the sentence: ‘do you understand what I say.’ He listened again
and said: ‘Yes. – Do you – understand – what I say.’ He then exclaimed quite excitedly ‘Where is
Mr. Bell – I must see Mr. Bell.’ Willie pioneered the way – but Sir William ran along before him and
came suddenly upon me shouting ‘Do you understand what I say.’ – He said ‘I heard the words’
‘what I say’ – He then requested me to sing and then recite something. Willie told me afterward
that he listened to my voice and then started up with the exclamation ‘To be or not to be.’ The
emperor then listened and exclaimed in surprise in his broken English ‘I have heard – I have heard’
and then listened again’ (Grosvenor & Wesson, 1997).
3. Demonstrations, fame and buzz
Demonstrating an invention helps to promote it. Bell’s theatrical skills had served him to
such an extent that it became a business in itself. This brought fame to Bell. Quickly the
magic of the telephone worked by itself and attracted the press and potential users like a
magnet. The buzz was spreading.
141
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

During the Philadelphia exhibition, Hubbard and Bell had neglected the press and not many
reports of the telephone were published at first, with the exception of the Boston Globe. In
fact, many of the articles in the press about the exhibition had been written in advance.
On 27 November, 1876, Bell and Watson demonstrated the telephone over 16 miles of
distance, between Boston and Salem, using the Eastern Railroad telegraph wire. The Boston
Post reported the imaginings of Bell: ‘Professor Bell doubts not that he will ultimately be able to
chat pleasantly with friends in Europe while sitting comfortably at home in Boston.’ Other
newspapers reported the news. They started to anticipate the excitement that the
telephone would create. Nature, the English scientific newspaper reported an address from
Sir William given at the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The lines
mentioning Bell in the article published by Nature were quoted in many American
newspapers. The Salem demonstration was repeated 69 but this time Bell made 149 dollars
out of it, the first revenue from his inventive activities. In February 1877, Bell gave a
demonstration of the telephone as part of a series sponsored by the Essex institute. All
tickets had been sold in advance. The start of the presentation was delayed. People were
tapping their canes on the floor waiting for the ‘show’ to start. Bell appeared on stage and
started the demonstration after some explanation. The first sound was echoed by a great
burst of applause.
Bell wrote the next day: ‘(i)t seems as if an electric thrill went through the audience, and that they
recogni(s)ed for the first time what was meant by the telephone’ (Bruce, 1973). At the end, the
crowd went on stage, listening to the first account of News dictated by telephone and
published the day after in the Boston Globe. Accounts of this demonstration were published
in newspapers all over America as well as in London and Paris. He asked other associations
200 dollars to run the demonstration. In April-May, three were given in New York and
Boston and in five other cities. Hubbard compared him to Barnum. Entertainment was
added to the demonstration, such as opera singers or quartets, with more or less success.
The press reported those events using many superlatives and colourful images. The New
York Herald found the effect ‘weird and almost supernatural’. These demonstrations and
142
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

lectures had turned Bell into a celebrity while he was just trying to cash some money out of
his invention. The success was not the one expected but it happily served Bell and his
business partners.
Later, in England and Scotland, Bell performed again a series of lectures and demonstrations
that drew up to 2000 people. The highlight was his demonstration for Queen Victoria of
England. She found the demonstration ‘as most extraordinary’. Those comments were largely
publicised and contributed to the success of the telephone in England. They increased the
fame of Bell 70. After this and throughout his life, Bell has been regularly interviewed and
featured in the press.
After the invention of the telephone, Bell was famous. Persuading others had become much
easier for him. He used this asset to support other inventors who were themselves
struggling to persuade people of the value of their work. It was, for example, the case for
mechanical flights. Bell defended publicly Langley, a friend of his, who believed it was possible
to fly a machine heavier than air. Bell made many enthusiastic and confident statements
about such a possibility. A journalist from McClure’s wrote of Bell’s ability to persuade
others: ‘Professor Bell has the happy faculty of expressing great ideas in simple words… He is as
enthusiastic as a schoolboy thinking of the kite he will make as big as a barn-door. His black eyes
flash, and they seem all the blacker contrasted with his white hair; the words tumble out quickly and
those who have the good fortune to listen are carried away by the magnetism of the great inventor’
(Bruce, 1973).
70 Bell’s wife wrote at that time: ‘(w)herever you go, on news-paper stands, at news stores, stationers,
photographers, toy shops, fancy goods shops, you see the eternal little black box with red face and the word
‘telephone’ in large black letters. Advertisements say that 700,000 have been sold in a few weeks’ (Bruce,
1973).
143
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section II. Thomas Edison
Edison, the American inventor was granted 1,093 patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, a record number (see fig 3). Throughout his career, he initiated over 100 businesses
and partnerships. Some see him as the creator of the modern method of invention 71. He
was active in the telegraph, mining, electricity, music and motion picture industries, to name
the most important ones. He played a crucial role in creating the last three. His fellow
citizens saw him as one of the most talented representatives of the American genius.
Figure 3: Edison, number of patents per year 72
Thomas Alva Edison was born in Milan, Ohio, in February 1847. He settled with his family in
Port Huron, Michigan, in 1854. He became hearing impaired during his childhood. Edison
joined the vibrant crowd of telegrapher operators in 1862, at the age of 15. He tramped
from city to city and went through a self-study programme like many of his peers. He
started experimenting during this period. He exchanged jokes and developed friendships
along the telegraph lines. Being part of this modern guild helped him to advance his career
and find employment.
71
In 1926, the Philosopher Whitehead wrote ‘(t)he greatest invention of the 19th century was the invention of
the method of invention.’ That method, Whitehead added, ‘has broken up the foundations of the old
civili(s)ation.’
72 Source: http://edison.rutgers.edu/patents.htm, December 2007.
144
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Edison started to improve and perfect telegraph equipment for the Western Union
Company. He settled in Boston in 1968 and filed his first patent in 1869. He moved to
Newark in the same year, where he established a machine shop devoted to telegraphy and
printing. By 1871, the year he got married, he was considered ‘the best electro-mechanician in
the country’ by the Western Union President, William Orton (Israel, 1998). He started
working on duplex technology for telegraphy. After a six months visit in Great Britain in
1873, where he met experts in the field, he established a laboratory in order to understand
some electric and chemical phenomena. He invented the quadruplex telegraph in 1874. This
was a chief innovation that allowed to transmit in a wire two messages simultaneously in
opposite directions. This invention brought significant revenue to Edison and enabled him to
establish Menlo Park, a laboratory fully dedicated to experimenting and inventing.
He improved the telephone of Bell in 1877 and invented the phonograph in 1878; it brought
him public recognition. The following years of his life were dedicated for what is now seen
as his main legacy: the commercial development of electricity. The invention of the self-
excited battery in the 1860’s had opened the door for the use of electric system for lighting.
However, arc lights were much too bright for domestic use and inventors started their
search for an incandescent lamp (Finn, 2004).
In 1878, Edison formed the Edison Electric Light Company in New York City with J. P.
Morgan and the members of the Vanderbilt family. Edison patented the incandescent light
bulb using high resistance carbon filament, in 1879. He was not the first one to envision an
electric light bulb but he was the first to turn it into a viable commercial product. However,
Edison had to invent much more than the light bulb, he had to create a whole electric
system going from the production to the consumption of electricity. In 1880, he founded the
Edison Electric Illuminating Company. He opened the Pearl street power station and lit
Lower Manhattan in 1882. He filed more than 100 patents during that period. Then, he
decided to dedicate his effort solely to his electric business. By 1886, more than 50 stations
had been established in the U.S. and a few in Europe. The Edison companies erected stations
and manufactured lamps, generators, conductors, meters and other components of his
electric lighting system. The business was prospering and the Edison Electric Company
capitalisation had now reached 10 million dollars.
145
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In 1886 and 1887, he pursued his work on the phonograph and, in 1888, Edison established
a new laboratory: the West Orange laboratory, where he dedicated again his effort to
experimenting. Together with up to 100 collaborators, he continued to experiment on
electricity and other inventions such as motion picture ones, the kinetograph and the
kinetoscope.
However, with the success of the alternative current over the direct current that was
promoted by Edison, his company merged with the Thomson-Houston company to form
General Electric in 1892. Edison started to turn his back on the electricity business. During
the late 1880’s, he invested a large amount of his fortune in a mining project to extract iron
from low grade ore using magnetic forces. He built a mill in New Jersey and kept on pouring
money in this project although it was never successful. It nearly brought him to bankruptcy,
especially as the commercial applications of the phonograph were not yet profitable. It
swallowed the money he made from electric stations.
This episode did not prevent him from pursuing his inventive work during the 1890’s.
Benefiting from the public appetite for entertainment, Edison found the route to commercial
success with the phonograph and motion picture equipments. He established units to
support the different lines of business he was pursuing. However, it remained a centralised
corporation with Edison heavily involved in decision making.
In 1907, Edison was 60 years-old, he announced his intention to give up the commercial
ends and to work in his laboratory as a scientist. His health was not good, however, his
personal impact on the conduct of the business was still fundamental. In 1910, throughout
his different companies, he was selling phonographs, movie projectors, electric fans,
batteries, music, movies and cement. Facing some financial difficulties, he had to reorganise
the business and established professional management to run more autonomously each
business, as there were few synergies between them.
146
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Now standing on the public scene, he became the Head of the Naval Consulting Board 73 in
1915 and continued to devote his time and some inventive activities to social problems. He
continued to receive public and official recognition until he died in 1931.
Edison was without doubt a career inventor but he was also a business man who created
many ventures and a business ‘empire’. Edison the inventor and Edison the businessman
cannot be fully separated. However, the focus will remain here on his inventive work during
the 19th century, his period of intense inventive activities which offers an opportunity to
investigate the role of Attentiveness, Experimentation and Persuasion in his inventive work
by looking at his success, the setbacks he encountered and also some of his failures.
What characterises Edison from an Attentiveness perspective is his systematic approach to
harvest ideas, knowledge and resources available to him (A/ Attentiveness: going
systematic). Every search for an invention led by Edison had to start with a systematic
study of the literature, followed by systematic searches for the materials that would be best
suited to his purposes (1). However, Edison also experienced a number of failures or
drawbacks throughout his career due to a misevaluation of the situation. They have been
qualified as ‘myopia’, ‘folly’ and ‘blind spots’ (2).
Experimentation was at the heart of his method of invention 74. Overall, his interests were
practical and, in a context of scarce knowledge on matters such as electricity and chemistry,
experimenting was the only way to progress. Edison claimed: ‘(t)he only way to keep ahead of
the procession is to experiment. If you don’t, the other fellows will. When there’s no experimenting,
there is no progress. Stop experimenting and you go backward. If anything goes wrong, experiment
until you get to the very bottom of the trouble’ (Israel, 1998). Edison relied on many people to
experiment and invent, he brought the division of labour to experimental activities; he
created laboratories which hosted dozens of experimenters and machinists (B/
Experimentation: Division of labour in the laboratory). It was initiated in his Ward
street machine shop (1) which helped him to envision what a real modern laboratory could
73 About the Naval Consulting Board, see infra: section 3, Elmer Sperry.
74 Biographers of Edison Frank Dyer and T.C. Martin wrote that Edison did not trust theory. One of his
assistants is quoted saying: ‘(h)e is never hindered by theory, but resorts to actual experiment for proof’ (Dyer
& Martin, 2001).
147
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

look like. He turned this idea into reality, first, in Menlo Park and, then, with the West
Orange laboratory (2).
The popularity of Edison was immense; for his fellow citizens, he was a fascinating figure; the
press called him the ‘Wizard of Menlo Park’. He was perceived as a prophet of his time
capable of foreseeing the technical wonders that were to come (B/ Persuasion: Edison a
prophet of his time). Before gaining such an aura he extensively used demonstration to
further his cause (1). This led him to discover the power of establishing intimate
relationships with the press, a self-fashioning exercise (2).
A. Attentiveness: going systematic
1. Systematic search
What characterizes Edison from an Attentiveness perspective is his willingness to go
systematic in order to exploit the many sources of ideas and knowledge available to him.
One event that triggered this attitude was his trip to England, in 1873, to promote his work
on duplex and automatic telegraphy. Through his meetings and encounters there, he could
realise how little he knew about the electric and chemical phenomenon at work in
telegraphy. It led him to pursue some experiments to further his understanding. He
purchased instruments, equipment, books and treatises from England and found them very
much of value. Later when Gould, the finance baron, had offered him $30,000 for his rights
in the quadruplex, the first thing Edison did was to buy several hundred dollars worth of
books and technical equipments. Every search for an invention led by Edison had to start
with a systematic study of the literature and of what was conceived before. Early in his
career, he also invested in private tutoring in order to further his understanding of specific
fields of knowledge. For instance in the early 1870’s, he engaged a Brooklyn high school
professor to teach him about chemistry and later acoustics. However reading was certainly
not the unique source of insights for Edison. Dismantling existing machines available was also
148
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

a source of learning. As a very productive inventor, it is no surprise that Edison was also, on
some occasions, ‘blessed by luck 75’ with his inventive endeavours.
However, the success of Edison and his team in inventing the incandescent electric light bulb
would not have been possible without a number of systematic searches. Upton, a newcomer
in Edison’s team, surveyed all British and American patents related to electric lighting. He
also reviewed the scientific and technical literature available. When the decision was taken
to use a vacuum to protect the platinum from oxidation, Edison’s staff studied all the
literature related to vacuum technology. They identified the best available vacuum pumps
and used features from three of them. Edison paid a lot of attention to costs in his
development of the electric system. Unfortunately, platinum was an expensive metal. Edison
therefore conducted an exhaustive search of all source of supplies of platinum. He sent
letters to mining districts in the U.S., to American ambassadors and other people in
countries with platinum resources. He did this in his own name and engaged in extensive
correspondences after answers started to arrive.
The search for a suitable filament for the light bulb is also characteristic of such systematic
investigation: the cardboard used for the early demonstrations was not suitable for
commercial application. He addressed his staff as follow: ‘(n)ow I believe that somewhere in
God Almighty’s workshop there is a vegetable growth with geometrically parallel fibres suitable to
our use. Look for it’ (Israel, 1998). A literature survey helped to guide this search which
focused on bast and bamboo fibres. When bamboo appeared to be the best solution, Edison
sent men to Cuba, Brazil and Asia to search for the best source of supplies, as he did for
platinum. The Madake Bamboo from Japan turned out to make the best filament. However,
the exercise was performed again some years after with the hope of finding more uniform
fibres. After spending $11,000, this quest was abandoned. Such an approach was re-used by
75
The discovery by Edison of the phenomenon that enabled him to develop afterwards the phonograph owes
very much to luck. It occurred when he was experimenting on an automatic telegraph where letters were formed
by embossing strips of paper. He realised that when the strip was moved rapidly against the lever used to send
the signal to the telegraph it produced a sound comparable to a human voice. He came back to this discovery
and perfected the outcome. He turned it first into a sort of ‘scientific toy’ that he demonstrated first at the offices
of Scientific American. A few years after, under severe competition from the Volta Laboratory, he participated
in the race to commercial applications. The phonograph turned into an ongoing stream of revenue for Edison
thanks to this initial providential discovery.
149
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Edison in different circumstances, for instance, he surveyed iron mining districts in search
for low grade iron ore and cobalt mines for his batteries.
2. Myopia, folly and blind spots
Edison experienced a number of failures or drawbacks throughout his career. Those are
very much telling about the significance of Attentiveness in inventive and business practices.
Some of them can be called ‘myopia’ where Edison wrongly denied a future to some
technical developments, others can be called ‘folly’ and occurred when he overestimated the
potential benefits of his work and others are simply ‘blind spots’ that arose more on the
commercial side of the business where Edison did not recognise or accept that changes
were occurring in society.
The telephone was one of his blind spots. Edison reacted first with indifference to the
invention of the telephone by Bell. As many in the telegraph industry, he saw it as a scientific
toy that could one day be useful for their work but not as a promising new stream of
technology. First, he did not enter this field of activity but, a few years later, as business
opportunities materialised, he brought some improvement to Bell’s telephone.
As the Thomson-Houston company was outperforming its rival, a merger between this
company and Edison General was agreed and it launched General Electric. Edison used the
sales of his stocks of the newly established company to fund his new project in the iron
ore 76 industry. It is considered to be one of his major failures in his career and was
described by an historian as ‘Edison’s Folly’ (Israel, 1998). After some early success, Insull, a
close collaborator of Edison, commented that Edison was ‘practically intoxicated by the
business’ (Israel, 1998). Throughout this project, Edison kept on being overoptimistic. He
remained blind to the technical problems and never stopped to believe that this project
could be successful. In the end, he nevertheless admitted that it was unwise to continue to
pour money into it.
76
Iron ores are rocks and minerals from which metallic iron can be economically extracted.
150
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Later in his career, Edison became more and more subject to blind spots. It was summarised
by Andre Millard as follows: ‘(h)e hired professional managers and then overruled their
decisions, making several critical errors of judgments that were to cost TAE Inc. dearly in
the phonograph business. Edison refused to move into radio and electronic recording in the
1920s and therefore lost the technological leadership that had used to be the hallmark of his
business enterprise. His own personal taste determined what records and films his company
made, and the results were completely out of step with the changing audience expectations
of the 1920s. Edison hated jazz and his company missed the great boom in new popular
music in the 1920s. His choice of film subjects tended toward themes that would not
provoke censors. Advertised as ‘clean and wholesome’ fare that would entertain and educate,
Edison pictures did not provide the titillation and violence that sold seats in movie houses‘
(Millard, 1991).
If Attentiveness helps to understand both the failure and success of Edison, Edison found in
failed experiments a source of learning.
B. Experimentation: division of labour in the laboratory
1. Endless experimental variations and the Ward street machine shop
Edison recognised that failed experiments could offer some precious insights and that
experiments in one field could lead to new ideas in another. He often re-used his ideas or
devices in other lines of research. During his early years as an inventor, working on
telegraphs, he reacted to comments from investors by highlighting that according to him ‘no
experiments (were) useless’ (Israel, 1998). When working on the automatic telegraph, he
worked on a device that he re-used as part of his acoustic telegraph. Discontented by some
galvanometers he had purchased, he decided to develop his own. It led him to experiment
with electromotograph repeater for automatic telegraphy and then to developments in the
field of high speed Morse telegraphy. It was therefore no surprise that Edison required from
his collaborators careful recording of experiments as they could prove useful for other lines
of work. Moreover, Dyer and Martin (2001), biographers of Edison, wrote: ‘(t)he ability to
151
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

detect errors quickly in a series of experiments is one of the things that has enabled Edison to
accomplish such a vast amount of work as the records show.’
A patent attorney of the Western Union said of Edison that he had a ‘kaleidoscopic brain’
(Millard, 1991). He meant that Edison had the tendency to come up with multiple variations
of devices. It allowed him to establish a viable patent strategy but, also, to increase his
understanding of technical issues by exploring alternative designs. He applied this approach
right from the start of his inventor’s career to devices such as the automatic telegraphy and
the translating printing machine. He wrote in his notebook ‘I do not wish to confine myself to
any Translating Printing Machine, as I have innumerable machines in my mind’ (Israel, 1998).
Some years later in his West Orange laboratory, he gathered wealth, materials and devices
that allowed multiplying the exploration of alternative designs in his inventive activities 77.
Israel (1998) provides a telling account of such a multiplication: ‘Edison and his staff were able
to experiment with 150 different vacuum tube designs in only two months. They tested different
materials and shapes for the tube and electrode, varied the electrode arrangements and electrical
connections and spark generators, different exposure times of photograph plates, and how readily
the rays penetrated different materials. These experiments enabled Edison to reduce the cost of
tubes considerably.’ Later in his career, Edison tested 2300 different reproducers as part of
his work on the phonograph. It is important to highlight that such an approach should not
be mistaken for blind trial and error, it is an intended ploy that aims at learning from the
exploration of alternative solutions in order to come up with the best possible one. This
approach also provided a wealth of new ideas that could be explored or re-used later in
different circumstances.
When Edison came back from his visit to England, he was 26. He was convinced by what he
saw there that he needed to enhance his knowledge of electrical and chemical phenomena.
Hence, he established a laboratory in his Ward Street machine shop and recruited some
skilled experimenters. It was at that time that Charles Batchelor started to work with
Edison, as his chief experimental assistant. It was the start of 20 years of work and
friendship between the two men. Batchelor was a British mechanic who came to America to
152
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

install textile machines. The precision of his work was highly appreciated by Edison and he
complemented Edison well. James Adams also joined as an experimenter around that time.
Both of them were rewarded with shares in the royalties Edison was getting from his
inventions but their names were never mentioned on the patents. John Ott, a skilled
machinist, who was to become a long term companion of Edison, joined in 1871, his
precision and patience were highly appreciated. Charles Wurth and John Kruesi also worked
with Edison. They acted as machinists, turning the ideas and sketches of Edison into reality.
Machine shops were flexible manufacturing facilities capable of precision machining. As they
used general machine tools, they were a place where inventions could be turned into
products. Textile was the main industrial activity in Newark and machine shops supported
this industry by working on the machines and tools it needed. Young inventors and skilled
machinists could come and go in machine shops. Subcontracting was a common practice.
The practices and the atmosphere of machine shops influenced Edison in the management of
his different laboratories.
2. Edison’s laboratories: Menlo Park and West Orange
Edison decided to open the Menlo Park laboratory in 1876. Some of his collaborators such
as Batchelor, Adams or Kruesi joined him. Now, all efforts could be dedicated to
Experimentation and invention. It was designed as an invention factory out of which Edison
expected to deliver ‘a minor invention every ten days and a big thing every six months or so’
(Hargadon, 2003). The laboratory of Edison was not unique, other independent inventors
had a laboratory and collaborators to support them. However, Menlo Park was the largest
existing laboratory. In 1880, up to 60 men were working there.
Edison and his experimenters worked but, also, played and lived together. They could be
caught singing, drinking or listening to the organ pipe. Sometimes, during the day or the
night, they exchanged jokes in a relaxed atmosphere; it contributed creating a sense of
community and to bring moments of relaxation as work could turn strenuous. Indeed, the
sixty hours week often turned out to last eighty hours, as they sometimes worked long
nights to complete important experimental campaigns. De facto, Edison was managing a
153
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

group of talented and skilled men whom needed some autonomy in their work. He built on
the machine shop culture and was very present amongst his men. He also interacted with
them on an individual basis. The New York Herald tribune described him as follows: ‘Edison
himself flits about, first to one bench, then to another, examining here, instructing there; at one
place drawing out new fancied designs, at another earnestly watching the progress of some
experiment’ (Israel, 1998).
Discipline was, nevertheless, important in some specific aspects of the work. Experiments
had to be recorded and signed by experimenters. Notebooks were assigned to projects or
test series. They served to review progress and to keep track of ideas and realisations that
could be used in other projects. Progress of each project was tracked through a system of
daily records. Each cost had to be allocated to projects.
Edison relied heavily on his own ideas. Sometimes, he also drew on the ones of his most
experienced assistants, such as Batchelor or Adams. Less experienced experimenters were
employed to work for him, not to come up with ideas. He was the only one who would
decide what was worth pursuing. As the staff and the scope of the work expanded, he
started to assign sub-elements of the work to different teams of experimenters and
machinists. He offered them initial guidance, sometimes sketches, but they were expected
to work out a solution by themselves. He described his own approach as follows: ‘I generally
instructed them on the general idea of what I wanted carried out, and when I came across an
assistant who was in any way ingenuous, I sometimes refused to help him out in his experiments,
telling him to see if he could not work it out himself, so as to encourage him’ (Israel, 1998).
Edison continued to reward his collaborators with percentage of the royalties made from
invention 78. When Edison closed down Menlo Park to become a businessman selling electric
stations, the laboratory was abandoned to pursue the work on the electric lighting system in
New York. In 1887, Edison started to build his new laboratory, a green field one that could
incorporate the lessons taken from the years at Menlo Park.
78 Batchelor was earning 10% from each invention. He also received 10% on the manufacturing companies.
Francis Upton received 5% from the Lamp Company and the lighting company. John Kruesi became a partner
in the machine works and managed the electric tube works.
154
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

After his laborious experience of inventing a complex system such as the electric one,
Edison decided to focus on more manageable and profitable inventions. ‘My plan
contemplates to working of only that class of inventions which require but small investments for
each and of a highly profitable nature and also of that character that articles are sold to jobbers,
dealers, etc – No cumbersome invention like the Electric Light’ (Israel, 1998). He expected to be
funded by the research he was going to perform for the Edison Lighting Companies and
contract research. But, as the foreseen operating costs started to increase, he looked for
investors. The big appetite of Edison deterred them from participating into the venture.
Edison had to invest his private money to support some of the projects conducted there.
The laboratory was equipped with a large and comprehensive technical library where a
wealth of patents, technical or scientific articles was readily available. The precision machine
shop in charge of producing mock up and devices were connected to the laboratory area
where experiments were conducted. Downstairs, a large machine shop was established. All
the facilities had the best available equipment. The building was designed with one principle
in mind: to facilitate communication and exchanges between experimenters and machinists.
The relationship between those two professions was fundamental. As an experimenter
developed an idea, he could immediately ask machinists to provide him with a model or
prototype to conduct some experiments and tests. Edison believed that ‘(t)he real measure of
successes is the number of experiments that can be crowded in 24 hours’ (Millard, 1990).
Access to wealth or resources was part of the formula for success in the eyes of Edison. He
once expressed it in an interesting way: ‘(t)he most important part of an experimental laboratory
is a big scrap heap’ (Millard, 1990). Edison improved on the record keeping practices
established at Menlo Park. Timesheets were widely used and general expenses were split
across projects. In January 1888, 75 men were working at West Orange Laboratory and
during the next two years, up to 100 were working there79.
79 The staff included: 25 to 30 experimenters with some well versed in mathematics and optics, 30 to 40
machinists, five pattern makers, three to four draftsmen, blacksmiths, steam fitters, carpenters, labourers,
clercks, and few people to support the laboratory.
155
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Edison also insisted on the need to have someone familiar with scientific matters and
capable of understanding English, French, German and Italian. He recruited young
experimenters with a university degree but favoured people who had more of a generalist
profile than of a specialist one, as flexibility was going to be required 80. Edison’s ability to
find and develop young and talented people who could work using his method of invention
was crucial. He removed people who did not perform according to his expectations and
rapidly advanced the promising ones to take on wider responsibilities.
Pursuing what had been established in Menlo Park, experimenters and machinists were
offered shares of the royalties, or interesting positions, in the companies that exploited the
inventions. Lectures on scientific matters were offered every week. Self-study was
encouraged and made possible thanks to the rich on-site library. According to Edison the
coordination of a laboratory obeyed a simple principle: ‘(t)he way to do it is to organi(s)e a
gang of one good experimenter and two or three assistants, appropriate a yearly sum to keep it
going (…) have every patent sent to them and let them experiment continuously’ (Israel, 1998).
Beyond the written instructions and sketches given before starting experimenting, Edison
used his daily morning rounds to provide guidance to his staff. Some of his collaborators
remembered him as being supportive of their works, avoiding criticism and offering advice.
Others described him as someone challenging and capable of sarcasm. In any case, Edison
insisted on maintaining an open culture. He encouraged the sharing of solutions he found
good. One experimenter stated: ‘we were all interested in what we were doing and what the
others were doing’ (Millard, 1990).
80 For example, Dickson who was working with Edison on the ore mining project was a photographer and
ended up heading the projects on motion picture.
156
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

C. Persuasion: Edison, a prophet of his time
1. Running the show: demonstrating inventions
During the first years of his inventive activities, Edison managed to convince the leaders of
the telegraph industry of his inventive capabilities. His self-confidence combined with his
technical skills proved to be highly persuasive with people with a strong technical acumen.
Building on his first inventive success, he rapidly became one of the most admired inventors
in the industry. During these years, he discovered the power of demonstrating models of his
inventions to gain the attention and confidence of investors.
Developing the electric lighting system required significant investments, as many
components needed to be brought together in order to have a viable and scalable
commercial application. The investors themselves asked Edison to demonstrate his
invention. Lowrey, Edison’s patent attorney, was helping him with his dealing with investors,
he advised Edison on this visit ‘it is all the better that they should see the rubbish and rejected
devices of one sort or another. Their appreciation thereby becomes more intelligent’ (Israel, 1998).
It appeared that this was a successful strategy. According to Lowrey: ‘(o)ur friends had their
imagination somewhat tempered, but their judgments are instructed, and we now have to deal with
an intelligent comprehension of things as they are, which makes both your part and mine much
easier. They reali(s)e now that you are doing a man’s work upon a great problem and they think
you have got the jug by the handle with a reasonable probability of carrying it safely to the well and
bringing back full’ (Israel, 1998).
Demonstrating invention such as the electric system was not just a good Persuasion tactic
to gain the attention of investors, it was also a way to win the support of the potential
buyers and to ease the acceptance of the new technology by the public. At the end of 1877,
Edison demonstrated the electric lighting system in his laboratory of Menlo Park to
stockholders. From New Years’ Eve, he extended the invitation to the public. It attracted a
massive crowd that packed all the trains and could delight their eyes with the marvels
offered by Edison’s invention. The Pearl street station that illuminated part of New York was
a full scale experimental site from which Edison learned a lot. It was also an exercise in
157
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

convincing investors and the public of the value of the system invented by Edison 81. The area
of Manhattan covered by the lighting system included the offices of Drexel and Morgan, his
investors, as well as the offices of some of the New York newspapers.
Demonstrations became a marketing tool for Edison’s business. The Paris international
exposition of 1889 was a vibrant example of this. The arrival of Edison in France was
orchestrated as the first steps in a series of events that intended to promote Edison and his
products. He continuously met the press, the ‘rich and famous’ of the time in a series of
dinners and ceremonies. It included for example, Eiffel, who had built the tower carrying his
name for the exposition. Edison offered him a phonograph. The American display at the
exposition was pretty poor but the Edison display was grandiose. It contained all his major
inventions so far. It was the occasion for 30,000 people to listen to the phonograph, a
premiere in Europe. Demonstrating invention turned into a well organised marketing tactic
aimed at promoting the products that carried Edison’s name 82.
2. The road to self-fashioning
In 1878, a French Writer, Viliers de l’isle-Adam, wrote a story published in 1886 under the
title ‘l’Eve future’ (‘The Future Eve’). In this story, Edison appears as one of the main
characters. The author referred to Edison as follows: ‘(i)n America and in Europe, a legend has
sprung in the popular mind regarding this great citizen of the America. He has become the recipient
of thousands of nicknames such as ‘the Magician of the Century’, ‘the sorcerer of Menlo park’, ‘the
Papa of the phonograph’, and so forth and so on. A perfectly natural enthusiasm in his own country
and elsewhere has conferred him a kind of mystique, or something like it in many minds’ (Israel,
1998). The story of Viliers de l’isle-Adam was not an apologetic account of the ‘Wizard of
Menlo Park’, as the press called Edison. This story was critical of the faith and the passion for
science and technology that was raging at that time. The Edison of Viliers de l’isle-Adam was
81 Dyer and Martin (2001) commented on the station and its role in convincing the public: ‘(D)uring the first
three months of operating the Pearl Street station light was supplied to customers without charge. Edison had
perfect confidence in his meters, and also in the ultimate judgment of the public as to the superiority of the
incandescent electric light as against other illuminants.’
82 Interestingly, demonstration was so convincing that Edison turned into a business for the phonograph. After
the early developments of the phonograph started to attract the attention of the press and the public, Edison
established an exhibition business. In 1868, 80 men were trained to exhibit the phonograph. For 100 dollars they
had the right to conduct exhibition for which 25 cents were charged as an admission fee.
158
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

presented as someone ready to crash trains full of people in order to try his new invention.
It was an exaggeration that intended to warn the citizens of the time of some risks ahead,
but without doubt the real Edison did not embarrass himself with truth to persuade others
he was right. Exploring this aspect of Persuasion will conclude the present study.
One of the early episodes in the life of Edison announces one of the tactics used by Edison
to fascinate his contemporaries: sharpening their appetite by giving them hints about what
they might see in the future. When he was young, Edison started to work as a newsboy on
the train. With the civil war, he sold more newspapers. The day the battle of Shiloh was
reported in the news proved to be an important day for Edison, who recalled himself: ‘(o)n
the day of this battle, when I arrived at Detroit, the bulletin boards were surrounded with dense
crowds and it was announced that there were 60,000 killed and wounded and the result was
uncertain. I knew that if the same excitement was attained at the various small towns along the
road and especially at Port Huron that the sales of papers would be great. I then conceived the idea
of telegraphing the news ahead, went to the operator in the depot and by giving him Harper’s
weekly and some other papers for three months; he agreed to telegraph to all the stations the
matter on the bulletin board’ (Israel, 1998). Instead of taking with him 100 newspapers, Edison
wanted to take 1000 in order to benefit the most from the stratagem he had devised. He
went to the editor and persuaded him to give him credit so he could take the 1000
newspapers. At the first station he sold 35 newspapers instead of the two he would usually.
His ploy proved highly useful. As he progressed from one station to another, he realised
that he was going to be even more successful than he thought at first. He increased the
price of the papers, as he saw that he was going to run out of them. Instead of the usual
price of 5 cents, he sold the last ones for 25 cents in his hometown of Port Huron.
In this anecdote, it is interesting to see that he both persuaded the customers to buy and
the editor to invest in his idea. Paul Israel (1998) wrote that this anecdote certainly taught a
lot to Edison about the power of the press. Moreover, Edison convinced people to buy his
newspaper by telling them about an exciting future perspective: the prospect of reading
about the account of the battle of Shiloh. In his career, he kept on doing just this: by telling
people about the exciting perspectives, the inventions of the future could offer them, he
159
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

self-fashioned himself and people developed a great interest for the inventions that bear his
name.
Edison has always been conscious of the important role of the press to promote his
achievement. He wrote an article in Telegrapher as early as 1868 on a double transmitter he
had worked on. The phonograph is the invention that contributed extensively to make
Edison a high-profile inventor. As mentioned previously, one of the first things he did after
he discovered the phonograph was to take it to the office of Scientific American, where it
received a warm welcome. Within three months, the phonograph had become the centre of
attention of all the press. Profile and stories on Edison himself started to appear. Journalists
visited him at Menlo Park, his laboratory became part of the stories itself. In the New York
Sun, interviews of Edison appeared every month, as he always had new things to share with
the journalists. The newspaper saw in him an endless source of entertaining articles for their
readers.
Edison tended to embellish reality and reporters would reciprocate. Hence, their articles
were very arousing for the public, his achievements gained a magical touch and he, himself,
appeared as a living legend. A journalist from The New York Daily Graphic went as far as
saying that Edison had invented a machine that could feed the human race. Edison had self-
fashioned himself as a prolific inventor and an outstanding character. In April 1878, George
Bliss, a close collaborator of Edison, wrote ‘(t)he Mania has broken out this way – school girls
write compositions on Edison. The funny papers publish Squibs on Edison. The religious papers write
editorials on Edison, The daily papers write up his life (…). When shall we get a rest? Why don’t
the Graphic full up exclusively with Edison and [be] done with [it]’ (Israel, 1998). The press
offered to Edison a unique Persuasion springboard to catch the attention of the public, to
promote his inventions and to respond to his detractors.
With the end of the century approaching, Edison was continuously asked to share his views
about the future. He was offered to collaborate on literary work. His imaginative mind was
to provide a wealth of ideas but he was not reliable in his delivery. Anyway, articles and
interviews continued to be published, sometimes without any contribution from Edison
himself, but featuring him as a sort of hero of the future. Edison, thanks to the appetite of
160
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the press, became a ‘prophet of his time’. He stimulated the minds of his contemporaries with
accounts of what could be possible 83. He fuelled an optimism that saw technology as a
solution to the problems of Americans and humanity. A journalist wrote in relation to
Edison’s visit to Paris in 1889: ‘America could have in Europe no worthier representative of the
consummate flower of its national life and progress than this modest scientific investigator and
industrious mechanic. Its chief contributions to the world’s stock of civilization have been the works
of its inventors. In that beneficent field of human effort its sons are unrivalled for practical skills
habits of scientific investigation and triumphs of mind over material forces. While the European
Continent to-day is a circle of camps swayed by the caprices of sovereigns whose inherited functions
are their only title to fame, America has expanded its energy in working out an industrial
development that is the marvel of Christendom, and the real leaders of its Pacific progress have
been and are its inventive mechanic – men of the Edison’s stamp’ (Israel, 1998).
Edison was a very persuasive inventor but he, sometimes, tended to play with the truth.
Around the middle of his career, he attributed his hearing loss to being struck on the ears
by a train conductor when his chemical lab in a boxcar caught fire. In his later years, he
modified the story to say the injury occurred when the conductor, in helping him onto a
moving train, lifted him by the ears. Such a change in his anecdote is harmless… but on
some occasions he used what could be seen as unfair tactics.
Edison tended to aggrandize his achievements. He attributed to himself inventions that were
not his. His minor inventions appeared as grandiose innovations. He did not publicly
recognise the contribution of his collaborators and, if accounts of their contribution were
published, he ridiculed them. Sprague, a collaborator of Edison who had worked on a motor
for electrified railway, saw his name being taken out and the product to be called ‘Edison’s
Motor’. A campaign of denigration was launched against Sprague who did not appreciate
seeing his own contribution undermined. He resigned and severed all links with the Edison
Company. Such a campaign had been orchestrated by Edison’s collaborators. Sprague,
throughout his life, fought against Edison. Other inventors joined him. Elihu Thomson wrote
about Edison: ‘(g)reat as has been the work of Edison in various fields to which he has given
83 A reporter commented: ‘Edison is the Aladdin’s lamp of the newspaper man.The fellow who approaches him
has only to think out what he wants to get before taking the lamp in his hand and he gets it’ (Israel, 1998).
161
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

attention, it seems to me that the attempt to spread his fame over fields in which he has done very
little, and sometimes done the wrong things, it to be sincerely deprecated’ (Israel, 1998).
As electricity was turned into a commercial application, people worried about the safety of
this new technology. Its use for the death penalty, therefore, started to be investigated. As
pain was more and more regarded by the public as unacceptable, electricity appeared as a
means to achieve sudden death without signs of pain. This application of electricity turned
out to be at the centre of the battle of the currents: the direct current promoted by Edison
and the alternating current promoted by his competitors.
Edison believed that alternating current would never be safe and used this argument to
scare potential buyers of competing systems. In November 1887, Edison was contacted by
the commission in charge of reviewing the methods that could be used to administer the
death penalty. The first reaction of Edison was to respond that he was opposed to capital
punishment and that he did not want to offer any advice. As the representative of the
commission insisted that the aim was only to find a more humane way to give death, Edison
responded: ‘(y)our points are well taken and though I would join heartily in an effort to totally
abolish capital punishment, I at the same time realise that while the system is recogni(s)ed by the
State, it is the duty of the latter to adopt the most humane method available for the purpose of
disposing of criminals under sentence of death. The best appliance in this connection is to my mind
the one which will perform its work in the shortest pace of time, and inflict the least amount of
suffering upon its victim. This I believe can be accomplished by the use of electricity and the most
suitable apparatus for the purpose is that class of dynamo-electric machine which employs
intermittent currents. The most effective of these are known as ‘alternating machines’,
manufactured principally in this country by Mr Georges Westinghouse, Pittsburgh’ (Essig, 2003).
This letter convinced the commission of the use of electricity for death penalty.
Within a year, the Edison laboratory hosted the first systematic research on animal killing
using electricity. Such experiments were conducted for days and nights and the laboratory
was opened to visitors. As the battle of current was at its peak, Edison commented: ‘I did
quite a lot of experimenting with currents on dogs. It was funny. At first, we used continuous
currents. After the electricity charged the dog he stood still without the slightest change in his
162
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

appearance. He did not move, and his eyes retained the same expression they usually wore. Then
after a minute, or a minute and a half, he would collapse and tumble over, dead. Finally we tried
alternate currents…Then it was found that this shock of one-tenth of a second killed the dog’
(Essig, 2003). Edison also explained why, according to him, someone surviving a shock could
feel pain but not one that was killed. He used for this purpose a metaphor: ‘(t)here won’t be
time for these sense-bearing nerves to telegraph the news that he is hurt to his brain before he will
be dead from the shock’ (Essig, 2003). Westinghouse reacted heatedly and claimed that
Edison was trying to create a prejudice against the use of alternating current. He highlighted
that this reaction was motivated by Edison losing ground on the competitive turf. This
polemic did not prevent Edison business from falling behind his competitors, but it
influenced heavily the choice of electricity for the death penalty.
163
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section III. Sperry
Elmer Sperry was an inventor who had been granted over 360 patents. He was also an
engineer and an entrepreneur. His inventions included an electric arc light, street lighting
systems, machinery for mining, electric devices for trolley cars, an electric automobile, a
lighting system for motion picture projection, giant searchlights for boats and
electrochemical processes, amongst many others. He applied his understanding of electrical
and control systems to a diverse group of business fields. He is best known for the
gyroscope, an invention traditionally conjointly attributed to him and to Herman Anschütz-
Kaempfet.
Elmer Sperry was born in Cortland in the New York State on October 12, 1860. His
mother died while giving birth to him. Sperry's grandparents and his aunt Helen looked after
him throughout his youth. He lived in the town of Cortland which was going through a rapid
industrialization at the time. He observed and sometimes worked at the blacksmith shop,
the machine shop, the foundry, the printing press, and the railway yard. He developed a flair
for technology and built small water wheels that he sold as toys.
He attended activities of the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association), including lectures
on technological matters, visits to exhibitions such as the 1876 Philadelphia one. He also
used extensively the YMCA library for his personal development. He was educated in the
State Normal School in Cortland and, then, attended Cornell University to study electrical
engineering for one term, from 1879 to 1880.
Sperry was impatient to tackle practical engineering problems and, like many at that time, he
was very enthusiastic about the developments in the electric lighting field. He, therefore,
joined a group of Syracuse industrialists who trusted him to bring to life a station for the
city arc lighting system. It widened his understanding of inventive and business activities and
contributed to the establishment of his reputation within business and technical circles.
To further his business activities, he moved to Chicago in 1883 and, soon after, founded the
Sperry Electric Company, which manufactured electric dynamos and arc lamps. He rapidly
164
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

became regarded as one of the pioneers of the nascent electric lighting industry. He
contributed to the establishment of trade and professional associations where emerging
problems were debated. He also established the Sperry Electric Light, Motor, and Car Brake
Company 84. However, after a few years, he could not compete with the larger electrical
company that had taken the lion’s share in the business. While he had to focus on practical,
technical issues, he had not been able to develop the technical capabilities of his company in
pace with the industry changes. Forced to leave the electric lighting business, he established
the Sperry Electric Mining Machine Company, which manufactured machines for the mining
industry. After some success, in 1892, the Thomson-Houston Electric Company bought the
company for $50,000. Sperry started to work for Thomson-Houston, as a consultant.
It did not prevent him from embarking on new projects. He simply had more business
connections to make them happen. Elmer Sperry moved to Cleveland where businessmen
had invested in his experimental electric street car. In 1895, Thomson-Houston and the
Edison Electric Company merged to form General Electric. This company bought Sperry's
street car patents and he also started to work for this new company in a consulting capacity.
Sperry pursued his engagement in diverse, emerging business fields. He worked for instance
on an electric automobile which led him to develop storage batteries and brought him later
to the electrochemistry field. In 1900, Sperry established an electrochemical laboratory in
Washington. Together with his associate, Clifton Townshend, he developed a process for
making pure caustic soda from salt and conceived, for the American Can Company, a
process for recovering tin from scrap metal. A number of patent litigations followed and he
ended up abandoning those activities.
In 1910, he started the Sperry Gyroscope Company in New York and his first compass was
tested that same year on the USS Delaware. It was the result of extensive collaboration
with Admiral David Taylor of the U.S. Navy. His compasses and stabilizers were taken up by
the American Navy as standard equipment and used during the two World Wars. He also
84 Previous to 1910, a total of six industrial corporations had been established by Elmer Sperry to manufacture
his inventions; their annual turnover was $5,000,000. Amongst the companies he founded were Sperry Electric
Company (1883), Sperry Electric Light, Motor, and Car Brake Company (1883), Sperry Electric Mining
Machine Company (1888), Sperry Electric Railway Company (1894), Chicago Fuse Wire Company (1900),
Sperry Rail Service (1911), Sperry Gyroscope Company (1910).
165
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

developed the gyroscopic compass and, after the First World War, the Sperry Gyroscope
Company began a systematic effort to market its products abroad. After years of success, in
January, 1929, he sold the Sperry Gyroscope Company to the North American Aviation
Company. By 1930, Sperry Gyroscope had become one of the world's most important
producers of military hardware. He received many awards and recognition across the
world 85.
Sperry was a leading figure in the field of control systems also called cybernetics during the
20th century. He extensively used feedback system and developed control loops where past
performance is used as information to correct the output. From early on in his career, he
learned to recognise when such an approach could be applied. He continuously refined and
developed those control systems.
Sperry died from complications after an operation for gallstones in June 1930. The New York
Times wrote in his obituary: ‘he has left among men an everlasting fame, and imagination allows
one to think of his inventive spirit making suggestions to the ferryman about improving service in the
crossing for the benefit of those who have to take it later. For Mr. Sperry was ever thinking of how
he might make the dwellers on earth a little more at ease whether on sea or land or in the air (…)’.
In 1986, Sperry Corporation merged with Burroughs Corporation to form Unisys
Corporation.
From an Attentiveness point of view, Sperry shares some habits and practices with other
inventors. He cautiously analysed all existing literature including existing patents before
tackling a specific problem. He also used his network of contacts to scout for information
and access ideas when he needed it. Sperry was attentive to technical developments but also
to business needs, he was an acute entrepreneur who understood when it was time to
enter a specific field of activity (A/ Attentiveness: getting the timing right). After
entering the mining field, he came up with a series of inventions that stimulated one another
85 In 1914, he was awarded first prize of the Aero Club of France for his airplane stabilizer; he was the winner
of two Franklin Institute Medals in 1914 and 1929; Collier Trophies, 1915, 1916; Holley Medal, 1927; John
Fritz Medal, 1927; Albert Gary Medal, 1929; two decorations from the Czar of Russia; two decorations from the
Emperor of Japan, the Order of the Rising Sun and the Order of the Sacred Treasure. He also received the grand
prize of the Panama Exposition. The Battleship USS Sperry (AS-12) was named after him and he was also
awarded three honorary degrees.
166
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(1). More generally he did not perform in depth business analysis before entering a new
business field but he paid attention to the signals that motivated his entrepreneurial moves
(2).
Sperry showed his interest in Experimentation from an early age. He became an inventor at
a time when the electrical engineering was in full development. Sperry was also able to build
on scientific approaches and on the technical library of his time to guide his
Experimentation. Yet, experiment had the final word. What Sperry invented had to work in
the real world 86.He was both an inventor capable of fine tuning and improving products and
an inventor who could come up with breakthrough. Throughout his career, he had to find a
balance between those two inventive activities (B/ Experimentation: breakthrough
versus fine tuning: the dual reality of invention).
Sperry complained about the conservatism he had to fight throughout his career. Sperry did
not need to convince large numbers of customers of the value of his work and inventions.
His main concerns were to ensure that he would have access to the needed capital to
pursue his work either from financiers, industrialists or his large customers, such as General
Electric and, later, the Navy (C/ Persuasion: Courting the rich and the Navy). Sperry
courted the rich (1) and developed some friendly relationships with them. With his work on
the gyroscope, Sperry had to persuade a different group of people: the Navy (2).
Government was on the verge of becoming a core customer of inventors. Sperry became a
major player as an inventor for the military. His name was even given to a vessel: The USS
Sperry.
A. Attentiveness: getting the timing right
1. Chain reactions in mining
When Sperry started to investigate a specific technical or business field, it seemed that
inventions came as a cluster or as a sort of chain reaction. His involvement in the mining
86
He wrote: ‘(w)henever your theory and practice do not agree, your theory is faulty’ (Hughes, 1971).
167
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

industry is more specifically looked at to analyse this point. He built on his technical
knowledge but, also, through regular interactions with customers, he developed an intimate
understanding of the business needs.
In 1889, Sperry launched the Sperry Electric Mining Machine Company. He realised that an
opportunity existed in this field when he was on his wedding trip. He met Mr Sweet, who
owned one of the main coal producers in the Illinois region. From their discussions, Sperry
saw the possibility of developing an electrified coal puncher. At that time, with the
development of electrical systems, the sector was up for some significant technical change.
Sweet foresaw this and his ideas were immediately taken up by Sperry. He developed a full-
scale model in the winter of 1888. Together with Sweet, Sperry conducted some basic tests
that led to some modifications. The tests were not comprehensive, which proved to be a
problem later. In October 1888, he drafted a patent which led them to found his new
company in 1889. However, some of the first machines sold had problems, as the model had
not been tested with hard coal, the machine could not, therefore, be used in all conditions.
As difficulties arose, Sperry was close to abandoning but, according to Hughes (1971), he
pursued his work with determination for a specific reason: ‘(h)e knew from prior invention and
developments that once an inventor immersed himself in a field new horizons and opportunities for
invention opened if one pushed forward. He had seen himself and other inventors go into electricity
with only an arc-light system and then invent substantial improvements and entirely new
applications.’ It proved to be a sound decision. Sperry raised some more capital and went
onto design a new coal cutter and an entire collection of mining equipment.
He moved away from imitating the manual work of miners and replaced the puncher by a
rotary cutting approach that he tested and patented in 1891. He faced resistance from the
mining industry, as this technical change forced them to adapt their approach to mining but
he, nevertheless, made some progress. As the puncher or the cutter needed a generator, it
was now a possibility to offer additional applications that could use this source of power.
Then, Sperry invented an electric locomotive for mine hauling. He improved existing designs
and met immediate success. In 1892, he employed more than 50 people in this business.
168
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A sort of chain reaction occurred from a product to another. As the inventor applies his
know-how in a specific industry, his attention is caught by new problems that he can solve.
In a business-to-business situation, like the one encountered by Elmer Sperry in the mining
industry, being attentive to a problem can lead to discover more problems that await to be
solved. It required, however, entering the business field at the right time
2. Jumping on a business opportunity at the right moment
The Elmer Sperry Company of Chicago was an invention and development company. The
aim was not to invest in a specific business field but to bring some inventions to maturity
and to leave to others the manufacturing and the marketing job. This was not an uncommon
form of business at that time in history and Elmer Sperry wanted to establish such a
company as he wanted to focus on inventive activities. Sperry had many ideas and saw many
opportunities. His notebook was full of such concepts that he hoped to develop one day.
However, he had to make choices. One of the key factors in his decision-making process
was the cost of experiments. Building a model, validating its principles, testing a product
could cost a significant amount of money and Sperry acted cautiously in front of such issues
by investing in potential invention that did not cost too much to invent. Contrary to Edison,
he was capable of resisting follies.
Sperry did not make thorough analysis of business fields before entering them but he paid
attention to specific signals and, given his wide array of contacts and his constant interest in
information both on the business and on the technical side, he was able to take some
informed decisions. Sperry invested in different business fields between 1880 and 1910, such
as arc lights, power, mining electrical-machinery, electric traction, automobiles, batteries and
electrochemistry. Hughes (1971) highlighted a number of patterns related to those
investments.
Sperry was moving in new fields of activity that were rapidly developing. He was sometimes
part of the pioneers or at least part of the second wave.
169
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

He would leave a business field, on average, after five years. He did not want to compete
with large companies with their in-house inventors. As they would develop within a field, he
would have found another attractive field.
He would focus solely on what he knew best: electrical technology but would consider
applying it to a diversity of fields.
He would move in a field only if he could find a critical problem that was preventing the
industry from progressing; a critical problem to which one of his inventions could bring a
solution. Those critical problems would usually be discussed or highlighted within technical
circles. They could be discovered in magazines, patents, etc. Sperry did not focus on
inventing a product as such, but on solving those critical problems that made a real
difference in a business field.
Sperry reflected on such issues and commented: ‘(s)o far as I can see, I have come up against
situations that seemed to me call for assistance. I was not usually at all sure that I could aid
in improving the state of affairs in any way, but was fascinated by the challenge. So I would
study the matter over; I would have my assistants bring before me everything that had been
published about it, including the patent literature dealing with attempts to better the
situation. When I had the facts before me I simply did the obvious thing. I tried o discern the
weakest point and strengthen it; often this involved alteration with many ramifications which
immediately revealed the scope of the entire project’ (Hughes, 1971).
The role of patents is highlighted in this quote. Sperry had a strong understanding of
patents, their role, their use and their impact on an industry. For instance, when he started
to look at automobiles, he foresaw very early that the Selden patents on the internal
combustion engine and the rotary engine were going to be critical in the future. He thought
that by complementing them with a few other patents, this emerging industry could be
locked for the profit of few players. This fence of patent would scare smaller players. He
brought this to the attention of Rice from General Electric, in 1897. The deal never
occurred and, in 1906, Selden was receiving licence fees from most automobile
manufacturers in America.
170
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Sperry was a talented entrepreneur who could recognise the early signal of existing
opportunities; he was also a talented engineer capable of taking an invention from its early
concept to the final fine-tuning activities.
B. Experimentation: breakthrough versus fine tuning, the dual reality of
invention
Sperry was working on inventions that required both experiments that would lead to some
breakthrough discovery and fine testing that would ensure that his products or machines
would work in all the required situations. Such a balance led him to explore different
organisational solutions that will be looked at in this section.
As Sperry got his first job as inventor and started to work for the Cortland Wagon
Company, he started to learn the many sides of inventive activities. He understood the value
of working together with a skilled mechanist. He learned the properties of matter from the
machine tool operators. He was instructed in the challenge of financing and marketing
invention by the management of the company. He learned how to prepare for patent by
recording and dating his work in a notebook, looking after the patent application process
and maintaining a good relationship with the Patent Office. With the increasing technical
complexity, large scale production and the rise of large businesses, inventing had become a
complex activity 87.
Later, when Sperry had established his company in Chicago, he ran into business difficulties
that offered him valuable learning. The Sperry electric lighting system was well appreciated
by customers. However, he continuously needed to adjust it to the specific requirements
and situations he and his company encountered. The arc light could interfere with the
telephone system, it would have to work without supervision for small installations or it
would have to comply with demanding legislation or standards. As Sperry was kept busy
87
Hughes (1971) highlighted one very specific aptitude of Elmer Sperry that helped him to deal with complex
issues. It was his ability to perform mental experiment. He was able to visualise in his mind machines operating,
going through constraint and stress. It helped him to discard potential solutions that would not have worked and
to focus on the ones that could work. Another form of visualisation that he shared with many other inventors is
the wealth of sketches he drew in his notebook.
171
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

with such needs, he could not focus on more fundamental inventive activities. It hurt the
business as the technical developments were going full pace and the Sperry Electric
Company was not able to remain at the forefront of those developments. Thomson-
Houston or Westinghouse hired at the same time the inventors who spearheaded major
changes in the industry and the engineers who could mainstream such inventions. They led
the major developments, such as incandescent light and alternating currents, when Sperry
was wrestling with routine adaptation with his arc-light system.
One of the first answers of Sperry to such challenges was to establish his firm as an
invention and development company. By doing so, he was able to choose the critical
problems he wanted to work on. It did not relieve him from pursuing in depth testing of his
inventions, as his work on mining equipment illustrated.
Furthermore, as Sperry was a consultant to well-established companies, he focused on
maturing his inventions until they were taken over by such companies who could deal with
the routine adaptation of his work. He nevertheless valued comprehensive and quantitative
testing 88. ‘His communications and articles of the eighties did not provide reports and analysis of
tests run on his equipment. They gave basic specifications and made assertions, but validation
depended on the authority of the inventor or his company, not on an objective appraisal of test
data. In the nineties, he sent the engineering staff at General Electric quantitative reports on his
inventions. When for instance, he began intensive development of his electric brake in 1893, he
provided full reports on its performance. E.W. Rice, Jr., Walter Knight, and the other General
Electric engineers needed such objective reports to make final decisions about the allocation of
development funds in a profit-conscious corporation. General Electric also wanted reports from
Sperry for the use of its sales representative selling to technically informed customers’ (Hughes,
1971).
88 The streetcar developed by Sperry went through some tests together with cars from competitors. They had to
drive twice over 6000 foot with an inclination of 12%. On one of the trips, they had to stop every 1000 foot.
Sperry’s car did well. He also worked on brakes and he tested them over 70,000 miles on a streetcar, after he
wrote ‘(i)t is only under such rigorous conditions of actual operation that rapid progress can be made in
reduction to practice. All machinery or apparatus must pass this ordeal successfully before it can be brought
into thoroughly commercial shape’ (Hughes, 1971). If a working principle was scientifically proven, it still
needed some comprehensive tests as interference or practical issues could still get in the way.
172
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Sperry needed to surround himself with some experienced and skilled mechanics and
engineers to perform his company’s inventive work. He developed what he called a large
experimental staff with a diversity of technical specialisations. When recruiting them, he
sometimes asked about their experience with creating models. He also wanted them to be
able to work out the details. A special shop was dedicated to the development of models.
He often favoured people coming from Cortland and his own family. Relationships were
informal, decisions were taken on the spot. He called the young engineers ‘his boys’,
expecting them to work long hours and hoping to transfer his knack for problem-solving to
them. Engineers brought him the issues they could not handle. They also suggested ideas
that he, sometimes, decided to turn into patents. He offered them a lump sum of 15 or 25
dollars for this, a rather ungenerous recognition by all standards.
The organisation Sperry developed for inventive activities was designed to respond to
different degrees of uncertainty. He decided to establish an invention and development
company in order to focus on more radical invention, as opposed to routine improvement
or customer specific adjustments. The fruit of his work, nevertheless, needed
comprehensive qualitative tests. Within his organisation, he kept for himself the most
advanced work which he saw as ‘pure invention’ (Hughes, 1971). He appointed engineers to
the routine work but established an informal way of bringing interesting problems or ideas
to his attention. 89
Sperry complained: ‘(r)esearch has done away with races to the Patent Office with absent minded
inventors who sometimes won glory and often lost everything to smart promoters. It has eliminated
too much of the exhilaration which came when uncertainty gave way to accomplishment’ (Hughes,
1971). However, he did everything to keep for him the exhilaration offered by Uncertainty
and chose a business and a form of organisation that would just do this.
89
When, in 1918, Sperry reorganised his company, he accepted to implement a more structured and routinised
organisation. The General management was given to a former naval officer who had developed close
relationships with Sperry. Sperry was the president but worked essentially with a small group of people on
invention and development as part of the research department. This formal routine frustrated Sperry in many
occasions. He could not, for instance, call foremen on the spot to have their views on how to manufacture a new
product.
173
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

C. Persuasion: Courting the rich and the Navy
1. Courting the Rich
Right from his first contact with Cortland Wagon Company, his first employer, Sperry
appeared as determined, self-confident and enthusiastic. He was given recommendations
from Professor Anthony from the Cornell University. His technical skills were quite
admirable for such a young man. It gave him the opportunity to have the full support from
the company to pursue some inventive activities with arc-lights and generators. To gain such
support so young, Sperry certainly benefited from the aura that was shining above the head
of inventors at the time. The fame of Bell and Edison was grand and it helped aspirant
inventors of talent to make their way.
The first installation of electric lighting systems in Cortland and Syracuse brought Sperry the
recognition and started to build for him a mighty asset: a reputation. People tended to
acclaim their rising local inventors and the local newspaper eloquently reported such events.
In Chicago, Sperry pursued his ascension, his colleague revered him for his role in the
development of the industry. He contributed to the establishment of the American Institute
of Electrical Engineers and played an important role in the establishment of the National
Electric Light Association where problems common across the industry could be discussed.
He took an active part in many of those discussions and was noticed by reporters who
praised his ability to explain technical matters with simple words. Sperry, indeed, shared his
enthusiasm and used metaphors to convey his ideas to others. His lectures and
presentations were lively and well appreciated by people from all walks of life.
When Sperry was working for the Cortland Wagon Company, he decided to demonstrate
his arc light system and generator in front of capitalists who might be interested in
establishing an electric lighting company in Chicago. Together with Tysdale, the treasurer of
the Cortland Wagon Company, they persuaded the county commissioner to gather a group
of potential investors in order to perform the demonstration. It led to a deal and the Sperry
174
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Electric Light, Motor and Car Brake Company was founded 90. In his first business, Sperry
was keen to install his electric lighting system for special events, such as the Chicago
Exhibition or concerts, where he could grab the attention of wealthy people.
When he started his invention and development company, Sperry pursued his approach of
finding outstanding citizens to backup his business and support financially his activities, such
as Medill, the mayor of Chicago and editor of the Tribunes and Sweet, the second largest
producer of coal in Illinois, was his partner in mining activities.
When Sperry started to work on his streetcar, he moved to Cleveland. One of the main
reasons that led him to move was his association with industrial and banking prominent
figures in this town who had agreed to invest in his inventive activities. Those relationships
opened more doors to him. It was also at that time that Thomson-Houston, which was to
become General Electric, had purchased some of Sperry’s business activities. He, now, had a
direct access to the managers of some of the most powerful corporations in America. He
later became acquainted with Dutton, who was heading the American Can Company.
Sperry’s family also contributed to widening the circles of influence of Sperry. His parents-
in-law introduced him to Rockefeller. Sperry took him for his first ride in an automobile. He
also tried to get President McKinley to join him in a car but apparently without success.
Sperry’s connections with the political world were also strengthened in his later life. He
supported the election of Hoover, the ‘President-engineer’. Sperry was very enthusiastic that
an engineer would become president. The relationship between the two engineers
developed over time and they had discussions together on many occasions. Sperry also met
and liked very much the company of Mussolini.
90 Amongst the investors, there was what Sperry saw as two prominent citizens and backers of his business: the
Reverend Anderson, who was the President of the University of Chicago, and Fitzgerald, who was the President
of the Wagon Company.
175
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

2. Persuading the Navy
With the development of the gyroscope, Sperry established a relationship with an economic
player that was new to him: the army. The role of the American army as a catalyst of
inventive activities was on the verge of becoming an influential one. Indeed, the Navy had
been caught in a naval armament race with European countries and was committed to
increasing its funding of technical developments. Following the decision of Britain in 1906 to
launch the vessel H.M.S. Dreadnought, Roosevelt had decided to build six ships of the same
family. Roosevelt was also keen on improving the relationship between line officers and the
Navy engineers. Nevertheless, the Navy was not mandated to support upfront development
activities, they expected inventors to demonstrate their ideas using working models. But,
year after year, the Navy was becoming more and more positive about the development of
relationships with inventors and started to acknowledge this evolution in its role.
The potential utility of gyroscopes for the Navy was well-known and Sperry managed to
have an appointment with Sir William White, a specialist in naval architecture, in April 1908.
Sperry was accompanied by the President of the American Institute of Mechanical Engineers,
as he intended to disclose the content of the patent he was going to submit in the following
days. White’s reaction was positive but he did not back up the purchase of the patent by his
firm.
In May 1908, Sperry met with David Taylor, an officer who was heading the model
experimental basin of the army and had been involved in testing anti-rolling tanks. Taylor
expressed some interest in the work of Sperry who then built a model. The two men met
again in December and agreed to progress with some experiments on a model. The
technical background of Taylor was paramount to the establishment of such a relationship.
His interest and expertise in applied sciences were instrumental in creating an opportunity
for a joint experiment of that scale. Sperry and Taylor worked hand in hand to conduct the
test and complemented each other in many ways as it was explained above. Taylor wrote a
report to the Bureau of Construction and Repair in which he recommended further tests,
using a full-scale model. This bureau designated the ship to be used for this in 1911.
176
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In July 1911, the full-scale experiment started, more than three years after the two men met
for the first time. This full-scale experiment transformed the gyroscope into a commercial
product. Sperry was now entering the circles of the Navy and of naval architects.
In 1910, Sperry’s gyrocompass also benefited from a policy of the Congress that required
the purchase of American made equipment for the Navy. The Navy was close to forming a
deal with a German manufacturer for the gyroscope but Sperry managed to turn the
situation to his advantage. How this was done is not fully known according to Hughes
(1971).
With the war in Europe, it was Britain and Russia who placed the first large orders for the
gyrocompass in 1914. With its engagement in the Second World War, the Army decided to
install a stabilizer on a second ship. War had created the demand. Close collaboration
between Sperry and the Navy, was pursued over the years, especially around experimental
work. This included activities related to the gyroscope and the gyrocompass but also
searchlights for the Navy, fire control systems, aerial warfare equipment, etc. Such close
collaboration provided an insider perspective to Sperry on the emerging needs of the army
that continued to favour the involvement of business in inventive activities.
A particular episode illustrates this, when the American Army was informed before their
engagement in the First World War that the Allies had an effective weapon against the
German submarine: the depth charge. Americans could not yet ask the allies to share with
them such secret information. The Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance decided to ask the ‘one
company in the America that could work fast and do things for the Navy without any order or
without any contract’: the Sperry Company (Hughes, 1971).
In 1915, naval officers had become concerned about the ability of American inventive
activities to support wartime effort. It was decided to establish the Naval Consulting Board.
Edison was appointed President of this Board and Sperry joined him as one of its members.
As the press speculated about the names of the potential members, it is interesting to note
that Sperry was not mentioned. Sperry did not have the public recognition of other
177
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

inventors. He had progressed throughout his career by courting the rich and, now, the
government, not the American people as a whole. It can easily be explained by the nature of
the activities and inventions of Sperry. His business served large corporations or
organisations for which he performed inventive activities. He had not come up with a
product used by or visible to all Americans. He was also more representative of the silent
army of engineers who were in rapid development than of the bunch of famous inventors
who had changed the face of the world. However, the membership of the board was
established based on the recommendation of eleven professional societies. He, therefore,
chaired the committee on mines and torpedo and the one on aids to navigation. Later, he
also became chairman of the aeronautics committee 91. Some members headed by Edison
recommended the creation of a large laboratory to support inventive efforts. Sperry,
together with others, suggested that the laboratory should limit itself to fundamental
research, experimental test and quality control and to rely on private enterprise for most of
inventive activities. This laboratory created heated debates that eventually led to
compromises. Its location became a major point of contention and nothing had been started
by the end of the war. The final choice for the location was Washington DC but it was
decided without the support of Edison.
The board also reviewed 110,000 suggestions from amateur inventors and found only 110 of
them worth exploring, a disappointing result especially considering the effort that had been
needed to screen them. The role of Attentiveness in inventive activities aiming at serving the
Navy was publicly recognised by some members of the board such as Hudson Maxim: ‘(t)his
is an age of specialists, and it is necessary for any inventor, scientist, or engineer to devote a large
amount of time and attention to the special requirements of naval and military matters before he
can qualify himself to be of much use’ (Hughes, 1971). He also recognised Sperry as being one
of such men.
91
Overall, Sperry was the founder of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and of the American
Electro-Chemical Society. He was also a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
American Physical Society, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, New York Electrical Society, American Petroleum Institute, Edison Pioneers, National
Aeronautical Association, Aero Club of America, the Engineers Club, National Electric Light Association,
Franklin Institute, Japan Society and director of the Museum of Peaceful Arts.
178
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The board had difficulties and some success. Manufacturing resources for war were
identified, contacts were facilitated and some inventive projects were initiated. There were,
by any standards, some conflict of interests but they were not regarded as issues. Sperry’s
company experimented and worked on antisubmarine devices, torpedoes and airplanes. For
some time, Sperry was publicised as the inventor of a solution to the threat of submarines
as he had worked on a net that would help detect submarines. But other members of the
board denied that this was going to be a true and decisive solution to the submarine
problem. Sperry was nevertheless regarded as a very valuable member of the board and
furthered his own reputation within naval affairs through his participation and was
considered as an expert on this topic in many circles. In 1930, the Secretary of the Navy
expressed the view about Sperry that ‘(n)o American has contributed so much to our naval
technical progress’ (Hughes, 1971).
179
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter 2.The rise of the inventive hierarchy
So far, the study of career inventors during the late 18th century in Britain and late 19th
century in America has demonstrated that they tend to be in ongoing interactions with
other agents in order to progress their inventive activities. In the study of a specific network
of inventors of the late 18th century, the Lunar Society showed that the A-E-P triptych is a
contending framework to explain why such networks come to exist and how they operate.
A network is defined, in the present dissertation, as sets of relationships between individuals
(not firms) face uncertainty. When uncertainty prevails, attentive inventors tend to form
networks to share and gather useful information that could lead them to a winning
combination of factors. They acquire information, they jointly experiment with others and
they enhance their reputation and build their ‘social capital’ as they interact with established
inventors, investors, entrepreneurs, etc. Such relationships can be interpreted as one-offs or
repeated transactions where information is exchanged for free.
If the A-E-P triptych can help to explain the formation and functioning of a collective
arrangement such as a network of inventors, we should investigate if it could describe other
forms of collective arrangements that support inventive activities and if it could help to
understand the evolution of the structure of a specific industry and its inventive practices.
This chapter will look at the changes that occurred in the railroad industry throughout the
19th century in America. It will study the evolution of the industry and the inventive
practices that accompanied those changes. It will investigate to what extent those
transformations can be explained thanks to the transaction cost theory. It will highlight the
added value offered by the A-E-P triptych in explaining them. By doing so, this chapter will
fulfil a dual role: contribute to the identification and study of collective arrangements that
support inventive practices and investigate an historical transformation.
The evolution of the railroad industry shows that the transaction cost theory provides a
compelling explanatory framework but that it can be complemented by further analysis,
using the A-E-P triptych, in order to describe the changes that occur across an industry. The
180
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

choice of the railroad industry is motivated by two reasons. (1) The railroad companies
were the first large scale companies to emerge and serve as models to others. (2) They
were the first ones to adopt an engineering mindset to conduct inventive activities.
We will reach these conclusions by performing a series of preliminary analysis:
(1) A presentation of the theoretical background and more specifically of the transaction
cost theory (Section I). It will investigate the seminal contributions of Knight, Coase
and Williamson.
(2) An identification of the salient facts that describe the evolution of the railroad
industry throughout the 19th century (Section 2).This will be done using the notion
of ‘regime of invention’ 92. The first regime studied consists of a wide network of
inventors and “attentive” railroad companies. Altogether, they created the longest
net of tracks in the world at that time (1). The second regime is the one of
engineers who worked hard within their hierarchies to optimise and standardise the
‘machine’ they inherited from their predecessors. It will be called an ‘inventive
hierarchy 93’ (2).
(3) An analysis of those facts through the lenses of the A-E-P framework (Section 3).
First, it will be done by looking at the work of a transitional inventive figure, Charles
Dudley (1). It will lead to a first comparative analysis between the two regimes using
some generic criterion (2) and, then, to another comparison table that will be
structured around the A-E-P triptych.
92
A regime of invention is a coherent set of inventive practices used by a group of individuals at a particular
point in time and in a given situation. When there are evidences that a regime of invention can be more than a
special case, it will be considered as a collective arrangement.
93
The denomination ‘inventive hierarchy’ refers to an in-house capability to conduct inventive activities with a
specific focus on a measurable parameter such as cost, quality or time.
181
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section I. Theoretical background
A. Frank Knight: a world of uncertainty
Transaction cost economy deals with the theory of the firm and its boundaries. It evolved
into a contractual perspective on economic arrangements. It is associated with the recent
work of Williamson and the early development of Coase, who, in his 1937’s paper, ‘The
Nature of the Firm’ identified ‘the cost of using the price mechanism’. However, some of the
original questions it tries to answer have been raised by Knight, who proposed to make a
distinction between risks and uncertainty, and suggested that uncertainty impacts on the
decisions, the behaviours and the social organisation of economic agents.
Uncertainty was a foundational concept for Knight who acknowledged that: ‘(i)t is a world of
change in which we live, and a world of uncertainty. We live only by knowing something about the
future; while the problem of life, or of conduct at least arises from the fact that we know so little.
This is true of business as of other spheres of activity. The essence of the situation is action
according to opinion, of greater or less foundation and value, neither entire ignorance nor complete
and perfect information, but partial knowledge’ (Knight, 1921).
What is meant by ‘partial knowledge’ requires some clarification. Knight differentiates risk
and uncertainty by defining Risks as a measurable uncertainty. This apparently simple
definition has had diverse interpretations by economists. On the one hand, some have
argued that this notion of uncertainty can simply be assimilated to a subjective probability
where we do not have a measure but we attribute one, based on our opinion. On the other
hand, other economists (Langlois & Cosgel, 1993 ; Denzau & North, 1994) saw in his work a
more radical departure from the neo-classical assumptions: for them, Knight was not so
much concerned with assigning a probability to an instance but with situations where ‘there
is no valid basis of any kind for classifying instances’ (Knight, 1921). In this second
interpretation, uncertainty is not related to a probability but to the nature of what can be
done.
182
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. Uncertainty and collective arrangements according to Knight
Knight believes that uncertainty prevents competition from working perfectly, provides
opportunities to make profits and justify the existence of ‘enterprises’. He uses the term
‘enterprise’ to describe large corporations that had developed intensively at the beginning of
the 20th century.
In Knight’s core argument, there are two mechanisms that can help to address uncertainty
and that justify the rise of large corporations: first, consolidation and, then, specialisation.
Consolidation as a means to address uncertainty is best illustrated, according to Knight, by
the notion of insurance where Uncertainty provides an incentive to deal with a group of
cases instead of individual cases. For Knight, it explains why the scale of some business
operations had been extended. Bad decisions and investment can be offset by good ones. It
could, for instance, contribute to clarifying why Edison was interested in developing multiple
businesses during the early 20th century. When some of his businesses were not profitable,
there was always one that was bringing enough cash to pursue other inventive activities and
keep other business activities running.
Another form of consolidation that led to the development of the largest laboratory of the
time was the choice of Edison to have everything he could need to invent at hand. He
wanted an immediate access to all possible information, skills, competencies, sample of
material or pieces of equipment he might need to experiment. His Orange laboratory was
conceived in such a way that he had consolidated access to the individuals and everything
else he could need in a single place. The emergence of such a large scale laboratory in this
period of history can be explained as a way to build a temple of knowledge and tools that
would help reduce significantly uncertainty as fast as possible in inventive activities. There is
here a sort of trade-off between time and costs: Edison preferred to have people and things
at hand to economise on time.
Previously, another form of consolidation that fosters a specific social organisation of
economic activities was observed, the constant and rather free exchange of information
183
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

between inventors, natural philosophers and entrepreneurs within the Lunar Society, a
network. Knight did not describe such networks as a form of collective arrangement that
could address uncertainty through consolidation. The development of large corporations
was the main phenomenon to be explained at the time he wrote his book.
For Knight, specialisation means that some people are better equipped than others to exert
judgement and, therefore, to deal with uncertainty. Langlois and Cosgel (1993) suggested
’(W)e can summari(s)e Knight's theory of organi(s)ation this way: because of the non mechanical
nature of economic life, novel possibilities are always emerging, and these cannot be easily
categori(s)ed in an intersubjective way as repeatable instances. To deal with this ‘uncertainty’, one
must rely on judgment. Such judgment will be one of the skills in which people specialise, yielding
the usual Smithian economies. Moreover, some will speciali(s)e in the judgment of other people's
judgment. As the literature since Coase suggests (1937), however, a theory of speciali(s)ation is not
by itself a theory of organi(s)ation, since, in the absence of transaction costs, there is no reason why
the division of labour could not be undertaken through markets rather than firms. Knight's answer is
that the function of judgement is ultimately non-contractible.’
C. Coase, Williamson and the transaction cost theory
Coase (1937), in his paper about the nature of the firm, was not interested by the difference
between risk and uncertainty, he was only concerned by explaining why organisations could
be preferred to markets in order to organise economic activities. However, he recognised
that firms emerged out of uncertainty: ‘(i)t seems improbable that a firm would emerge without
the existence of uncertainty’. Yet, he did not pursue this idea which he saw as being distinct
from his main question: the determinant of choice between market and hierarchies, to
which he answered plainly ‘(t)he main reason why it is profitable to establish a firm would seem
to be that there is a cost of using the price mechanism’ (Coase, 1937).
When looking at an inventor such as Edison, some observations are at odds with the theory
proposed by Coase. If Edison wanted to have all information, skills, material sample and
equipment at hand in his Orange laboratory, it was not to economise directly on transaction
costs but to economise on time and to prevent someone else from realising the benefit of
184
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

an invention before he could do it himself. The imperative for such an inventor was not to
economise on costs but to be first to patent or to market. Costs and funds act here as
constraints, limiting factors for an inventor but they are not his prime purpose.
Williamson pursued the work of Coase and studied governance mechanisms, such as the
following three collective arrangements: firms, markets, and relational contracting. In ‘The
mechanisms of governance’ (1996), he clearly defends what he calls ‘the organisation as a means
to economise on transaction cost and not as a means to discriminate on price or to establish entry
barriers’. He considers that the study of governance mechanisms is concerned with ‘the
identification, explication and mitigation of all forms of contractual hazards’ (Williamson, 1996).
The unit of analysis, the departure point he chooses is the transaction and the costs
associated to it. He recognises that transaction costs are difficult to measure but that what
matters is comparing alternatives. He highlights that transaction costs emerge from
contractual hazards, which are subject to three hypotheses:
• Economic agents have a bounded rationality, they cannot foresee everything;
• Economic agents tend to be opportunists;
• The existence of specific assets that cannot be easily redeployed for alternative use
without sacrificing their value.
Williamson highlights a number of contractual hazards his work is concerned with: ‘(1) the
aforementioned hazards of bilateral dependency, (2) hazards that accrue to weak property rights
(3), measurement hazards (…) (4), intertemporal hazards, which can take the form of
disequilibrium contracting, real-time responsiveness, long latency, and strategic abuse. Also (5) the
hazards that accrue to weakness in the institutional environment’ (Williamson, 1996).
The notion of hazards brings us back to the concept of uncertainty. However, they are only
conceived in relation to a market or contractual situation and uncertainty is reduced to a
moral hazard perspective where some asymmetries exist between a seller and a buyer.
185
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section II. The evolution of the railroad industry throughout
the 19th century in America
The railroad industry started in England, where George and Robert Stephenson, using steam
engines, developed locomotives and established the first railroad line between Liverpool and
Manchester.
In 1831, Robert L. Stevens for the Camden & Amboy Railroad in America bought a
locomotive from Stephenson. Three years after, rail lines had been established in New
Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Delaware. In 1840, with
2800 miles of tracks, the U.S. railroad took over the British ones. In 1859, it was 28,800
miles of tracks that connected American cities. The length of tracks is not the only relevant
measure to depict the evolution of the railroad industry throughout the 19th century. The
power of locomotives grew significantly and the freight capacity of cars more than tripled
during that period. Users of railroad had a diversity of needs. Some wanted luxurious cars
for passengers. Others were interested in express delivery or refrigerated units. Coaches
could carry people, livestock, meat or fruits. Technical problems were diverse and
encompassed: heat transfer, breaking system, use of new materials, safety issues.
The railroads materialised as a large-scale system capable of carrying a diversity of people
and goods. It required complex machines, tracks and fuel but also tunnels and signals. In the
1840’s, locomotives were made of about 4000 parts working together. Ten years later, it
was 6000 parts (Meyer, 2006). It also needed a large number of people to coordinate the
flows and a significant amount of capital.
From the perspective of inventive activities, the challenge was immense, as outlined by Ross
Thompson: ‘(t)he engine and boiler had to be redesigned for use as a locomotive, and new means
to transmit power to wheels had to be developed. Cars had to be designed along with mechanisms
to join them together. Producing the thousands of parts of the locomotive, railroad cars, and weight-
bearing wheels required sophisticated metalworking capabilities. Brakes, signals, durable track, and
adequate roadbed were required. The engineering tasks of identifying track widths, laying out lines,
and building bridges were formidable. To these technological requisites were added the economic
186
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

and legal problems of financing roads, identifying markets, and securing rights of way’ (Ross
Thomson, 2004).
Inventions across the system were needed to respond to the needs and expectations of a
young nation eager for transportation and communication systems. During the 19th century,
the railroad industry witnessed a wide variety of inventions across the whole system, they
often constituted refinement or derivatives of existing devices. New materials were
continuously considered, new shapes for rails were tested.
As highlighted by Usselman (2002), in such a complex environment, decisions relating to
inventive activities or regarding the adoption of an invention were difficult to take: ‘(e)fforts
to channel technical changes and reshape railroad innovation, while influenced always by various
economic incentives, seldom boiled down simply to making rational choices grounded strictly in hard
economic data. By its very nature, innovation involves uncertainty 94.’
Four characteristics of the railroad system are important to understand the characteristic of
inventive activities presented underneath:
First, there was no real competition between the railroads themselves. Railroads might have
competed to a certain extent with other modes of transportation but not directly amongst
each other, as they exploited specific connections between cities. It eased the development
of collaborative work across the industry.
Second, improvements were essentially incremental ones. They often aimed at improving
specific parts of the wider system. As a consequence, many inventors could make a
contribution to inventive activities.
Third, the railroad can be considered as a loose system. The components of the system
could be improved to a certain extent independently. However, they also needed to work
together as a system. This was the main challenge for the railroad companies.
94
According to Usselman, uncertainty applies to situations where economic data cannot be the sole basis for
decision making.
187
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Fourth, one important decision had an important impact of inventive activities, it was the
decision to ensure interchangeability of cars across the different railroad lines. This decision
imposed, for instance, that an agreement should be found within the industry in order to
improve brake systems and other components.
A. The early years of inventive activities in the railroad industry: networks
of inventors and attentive railroad companies (Regime I)
To support the rapid expansion of railways in America, an appropriate approach to inventive
activities emerged from the machine shop culture that already existed. It was a collective
approach capable of dealing with the uncertainty and the complexity at stake. The railroads
emerged from a sort of bottom up learning process where all existing industries tested their
capability to support this emerging one. The industry started as a series of local experiments
that came together to form the wider system. Inventive activities in the railroad industry
depended heavily on inventions or improvements initiated in other sectors.
Railroad companies did not build their own locomotives. At the beginning, they relied on
suppliers, especially British ones. American ones developed over the years. Such
manufacturers had their roots in industries such as steam engines, textile machinery, iron
foundries and other machine shops serving the capital goods market. The design of
transmissions, boilers and other complex parts emerged from the machining industry and
locomotives were added to their existing range of activities. For instance, Baldwin, one of
the main producers of locomotives, had experience in tool making, hydraulic press and
steam engines. During this period, many inventors who contributed to make an industry rise
out of the ground had previously invented for other sectors.
Firms hired machinists who built the machines and, often, also used and repaired them.
Stevens from the Camden & Amboy Railroad employed, for instance, a mechanic, Isaac
Dripps, specialised in steamboat to work with him. Such master machinists maintained,
purchased and contributed to the design of the equipment needed by railroad companies.
188
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

It was the same for civil engineers: ‘(o)f 81 civil engineers active through 1835, railroads
employed 49 by 1840. Given that a dozen early engineers were inactive by 1830, about two-thirds
of active engineers were involved in railroads in the 1830s. At least half had been trained in canals;
many others had worked on surveying, water supply, and bridge-building’ (Thomson, 2004).
Civil engineers often had a college background but it was different for most machinists who
went through formal and informal apprenticeship, where they learned from peer
practitioners. Later, some of them could move to the position of foreman, supervisor or
master mechanic, in more complex activities. They moved from one firm to another, selling
their skills to the highest offer, taking with them the knowledge and experience they had
gained. Their wages were amongst the highest in the industry. They acted as referrals for
new jobs amongst each other. Leading machinists attracted their most talented peers hungry
for learning opportunities and technical challenges. Redundancy of skills encouraged them to
specialise and invent new things. Machinists visited each other within a same region or
across regions to keep up to date with the technical developments. International exchanges
also occurred between experts, especially with the British ones 95. Inventive practices were
therefore supported by a network of machinists that expanded alongside the railroads and
reach across them.
Master mechanics knew the strengths and weaknesses of the different machines at work at
that time. They communicated freely such information. Job mobility among railroads and
locomotive firms also helped to spread knowledge. In 1826, The Journal of the Franklin
Institute, started to publish detailed assessments of locomotives. Other publications
addressed railroad design and bridges. Books were also published in the 1830’s to share
information about tracks and bridges.
Inventions were usually attributed to their inventors. As a consequence, machinists received
the largest amount of patents within the industry. Railroad companies preferred to take
licences from inventors rather than buy patented products on the market.
95
Meyer (2006) described such networks using the theoretical development of weak ties and strong ties
proposed by Granovetter (1985) and find them similar to the networks in the Dilicon Valley studied by Saxenian
(1994).
189
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

‘A study of locomotive, railroad design, car, brake, and switch patents through 1865 reveals several
trends. Patenting accelerated with locomotive usage. Of the 508 total patents, 1 percent were
received through 1830, 2-6 percent in the 5-year period through 1850, 13 percent from 1850
through 1855, 37 percent from 1856 through 1860 and 30 percent during the Civil War years.
Patenting accelerated around 1850 just after the jump in new track mileage in 1848. The
occupation of patentees and the location of patents suggest that patenting was closely linked to the
networks that spread railroad knowledge. Machinists working for the railroads or locomotive firms
were frequent inventors… Inventors with known occupations received 53 percent of all patents.
Machinists led the way, with 48 percent of patents with known inventors. Machinists making or
maintaining railroad equipment received half of these patents, which understates their share
because many with railroad employment were listed simply as machinists. Scientific and inventive
professions, including engineers, physicians, chemists, patent agents, draftsmen, and model-makers,
received another 11 percent of patents, though some listed as engineers were machinists who
operated locomotives and steam engines’ (Thomson, 2004).
With the rapid expansion of the industry and the continuous inventive development, the
market for locomotives remained very fluid, until the 1860’s, when the three dominant firms
started to monopolise the market (Meyer, 2006). Before, entry barriers remained low.
The relationship between railroad companies and their suppliers was often based on strong
informal relationships, discussions on the shop floor and intense exchanges. The style of
management was personalised. Directors on the board of the railroad companies used their
technical acumen and their personal relationship with suppliers to discuss needs, inventions
and contracts. Trials of new equipment were erratic and consisted of discrete try-outs.
In railroad companies, during the 1850’s and 1860’s, the master mechanics and chief
engineers had a significant freedom in the selection of new technologies. It was their
responsibility and, often, a pleasing piece of work for them, to monitor and pick those
technologies. Their personality and style impacted their work significantly. Advertising for
new inventions was accumulating on their desks and the ones of their collaborators and
contacts. Many people were consulted and through correspondence, inventions were
190
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

extensively discussed. When experiments were considered, it was usually comparative trials
between two devices conducted in fairly simplistic ways. This was closer to the tinkering
habits of mechanics than to the systematic experiments.
During the 1860’s and the early 1870’s, Harris was the chief operating officer of the ‘Chicago,
Burlington and Quincy’, a railroad company. He liked new technologies and networked
extensively with inventors. He regularly promoted new designs and ideas coming from
outside the company to his subordinate. He advised inventors on how to best promote
their inventions. He also encouraged them to patent and sometimes incubated their work in
the Burlington facilities.
During this formative period, new technologies and devices were not systematically used,
Steel rails for instance, were used on the lines where the traffic was very intense. There was
a lack of consistency across the industry but that fitted the constraints of a rapidly
expanding capital intensive industry.
The functioning of this regime I of invention within the railroad industry can be interpreted,
in line with Knight’s ideas, as an information consolidation strategy to address uncertainty.
There was a constant and rather free exchange of information, as observed with the flow of
information between the companies and their suppliers. Master mechanics moved from one
company to another, carrying with them their knowledge. The network of individuals who
went across the firms, as a collective arrangement, encouraged the consolidation of
information and knowledge. Across and amongst markets, railroad companies and suppliers
talked to each other, exchanged views on what to do and how to do it. This could appear as
a costly approach. However, they chose the best approach to improve their individual and
collective chances of success by sharing knowledge freely. During this period, such collective
arrangements facilitated the sharing of knowledge in order to continuously prevent ‘re-
inventing the wheel’ and to optimise resource allocation in inventive activities.
It was described by Usselman: ‘(s)ensing that in this experimental stage, they had more to gain by
openness than secrecy, railroads generally exchanged technical information quite freely. Even key
191
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

consulting experts to the railroad (…) often let their improvised solutions to the challenges of
railroading in North America slip into a common pool of techniques’ (Usselman, 2002).
This functioning of the industry, and more specifically of its inventive activities, shaped the
industry until the 1870’s. At that time, four threads can be identified for having encouraged
railroad executives to start thinking differently and to bring a new regime of invention that
can be described as ‘inventive hierarchies’. The increasing number of patents had made the
work of railroad companies difficult. They were facing mounting complexity on legal cases,
assigning rights to the right inventors was becoming difficult as technical issues were more
and more complex.
At the same time, the rising power of some suppliers was becoming a challenge to railroad
companies. For instance, Carnegie in the steel business had increased its bargaining power
by building massive production capacity in a growing market. Westinghouse did not want to
license his brake systems to railroad companies, as he was determined to exploit and fully
benefit from his invention.
As materials became more sophisticated, purchasing them required more structured
approaches. Railroad companies needed to specify and verify what they were buying.
Moreover, it was time for an industry that had grown in an ad hoc way, to rationalise its
functioning and adopt a different approach to inventive activities. The network was a
collection of peculiar situations. It was ripe for a large scale cost reduction that could be
conducted using the logic of standardisation.
Before describing the regime II of invention, the presentation of a transition figure, Charles
Dudley, will help to understand the nature of the changes that took places.
B. Charles Dudley, a transition figure from invention regime I to II
Charles Dudley can be seen as an archetypical transition figure between the railroad
companies attentive to the technical developments made by a wide network of inventors
going across industries (regime I) and Inventive hierarchies (regime II). He gained a PhD in
192
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chemistry from Yale and was, according to Usselman (2002), the first full-time employed
PhD by the industry. He was employed by the Pennsylvania Railroad company starting in
1875. He acted as President of the American Society for Testing and Materials 96 (ASTM).
At the start of this engagement he wrote: ‘(s)o little was the possible use of a chemist
appreciated and so little work was known that he could do on a railroad that permission to
have a chemist was granted more as a concession and as an experiment than with any faith
or belief that the scheme would prove to be permanent or valuable’ (ASTM, 1910).
Dudley headed an engineering laboratory, where he did a lot to standardise methods used
for conducting chemical analysis. The laboratory was staffed with 34 chemists at its apogee.
Dudley also played a critical role in the development of industry bodies. He was president of
the American Chemical Society and of the American Society for Testing Materials. Overall,
he held membership in 50 societies.
His work revolved around conducting chemical analysis of materials. His first important
investigation was a long experiment on steel rails. Dudley collected 25 samples of worn
steel rails and recorded their position in the track. This helped him to relate the chemical
nature of the rail to the wear it had to sustain. It allowed him to develop a formula for the
best steel rail. Even though his conclusion happened to be erroneous, his approach became
a landmark in the inventive hierarchies’ regime of inventive activities.
He devoted a large amount of his attention to the development of technical specifications.
He discovered that burning oil varied extensively in their composition. Indeed, before this
transition period, many products such as soap, oil or paints were bought under their generic
name.
‘The problems by which Dr Dudley found himself confronted were practically fourfold. First,
to ascertain what material was best for a given purpose, second, to prepare specifications
96
ASTM, the American Society for Testing and Materials, is now an international standards organisation that
develops and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards for a wide range of materials, products, systems
and services.
193
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

under which such materials might be purchased in the widest markets under conditions of
the freest competition, but with the certainty of getting what was wanted; third to devise
the best methods and the most efficient organisation for carrying on routine acceptance
tests on an extensive scale; and, fourth, both to conduct independent research work and to
keep in touch with the latest scientific and practical developments in a vast field, with a view
of profiting by whatever might be safely utilised to secure increased efficiency or reduced
costs’ (ASTM, 1910).
Dudley encouraged suppliers and buyers to cooperate to establish such specifications. The
customer had to conduct material analysis in actual service but he also needed to involve
manufacturers in the final establishment of the specifications. Dudley wrote: ’(t)he
specification should be the embodiment of the best that is known on the subject’ (ASTM, 1910), it
resonates as a precursor of the ‘one best way’ of Taylor.
This work on technical specifications 97 led to the establishment of industry wide standards,
which was a key activity performed as part of the American Society for Testing Materials.
Dudley did not come up with specific breakthrough inventions per se. He has patented
throughout his career 15 inventions but his main achievement was the establishment of new
methods to conduct chemical analysis, to establish technical specifications and to develop
standards for the regime II of inventive practices.
C. The later years of inventive activities in the railroad industry during
the late 19th century: Inventive hierarchies (regime II)
In response to the challenges they were facing, railroads changed their approach regarding
patents, they urged the Congress to revise patent laws. They tightened their control of
patents taken by their own employees. They established cross-industry bodies to collectively
97
The work of Dudley is a great reminder to economists that establishing contracts is not solely a legal matter
but also a technical one where sometimes buyers and suppliers need to agree or even conceive the object of the
transaction.
194
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

handle patent issues. But it was only one side of a much more fundamental change that
occurred throughout the industry.
During the later years of the 19th century, railroad companies adopted a different approach
to inventive activities. They established centralised, corporate departments staffed with
professional engineers. The personal authority of the technical experts was diminished and
replaced by an inventive hierarchy where salaried engineers took decisions based on defined
rules.
Such engineers had a knack for uniformity. They pursued a policy of standardisation, as the
industry had developed haphazardly during its formative period. They conducted systematic
experiments to select solution amongst existing technologies. They established methods to
analyse materials and developed sound technical specifications that were integrated in
suppliers’ contracts.
They used managerial innovation, as much as technical ones, to optimise the performance of
the traffic on the railroads and to improve the efficiency of the system. They based their
decisions on financial information, not on expert opinion.
The inventors, in this second regime of inventive activities, were the archetype of modern
engineers. They held Ph.D.’s in chemistry or were college-trained mechanics. Those
academically trained engineers brought with them scientific methods of investigating the
order of things, they used statistics and were keen on performing systematic analysis in
order to understand what was really happening.
The performance of those inventive hierarchies and bureaucrats was not measured by the
amount of new business generated but by the reduction in operational costs used to run the
system. They did not promote change, designs were stabilised and mechanics were not
encouraged any more to come up with new ideas. Cost became the sole judge of what
should be and should not be done.
195
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

They did not pay much attention to the needs of the customers of railroad companies, they
looked solely at the system, at its problems and limitations to find improvement
opportunities. They standardised what they inherited from the master mechanics but did
not bring fundamentally different approaches to it. Instead of departing from existing
practices they assessed what they had at hand and established standard out of it. They
routinised what they had. This was a gigantic task, a response to years of ad hoc inventive
activities.
Taussig (1900), an Harvard economist summarised this transformation in 1900: ‘(t)he
increasing application of machinery has made it possible to reduce operations more and more to
routine and system, and to lessen the need of independent judgments for every step. Technological
education has supplied an array of trained, intelligent, and trustworthy assistants – engineers,
chemists, mineralogists, electricians to whom can be delegated a multitude of steps and processes
that formerly needed the watchful eyes of the master himself.’ He also added some remarks
about the impact of scientific schools and institutes of technology: ‘(t)heir efficacy in
permeating all industry with the leaven of scientific training has been strengthened by the social
conditions which have enabled them to attract from all classes of the plentiful supply of mechanical
talent. Hence American industry has shown not only the inventiveness and elasticity characteristic of
the Yankee from early days, but that orderly and systematic utili(s)ation of applied science in which
the Germans have hitherto been –perhaps still are – most successful.’
Interestingly, Frederick Taylor, who later promoted the principles of scientific management,
started his career as one of those engineers working for Midvale Steel Works. Together
with Yale graduates, he worked on studies on steel rails and tyres (Usselman, 2002).
Such efforts were not limited by the widening boundaries of the railroad companies.
Interchangeability of cars encouraged railroad companies to contribute to the development
of trade associations in charge of reaching agreements based on systematic experiments and
data collection. Engineers worked together to establish industry wide standards.
Representatives from railroad companies and steel business conducted collaborative
investigations. Those associations included the Master Car Builder Association, the
196
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

American Society of Civil Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the
American Society for Testing Materials.
The Master Car Builder Association was, for instance, at the origin of a series of tests on
behaviour of brakes during emergency stops that occurred in 1886 and 1887. It involved 55
trains and many representatives of the industry. It led to the establishment of technical
standards on brakes published in 1888. It contributed to create a much needed uniformity
and inter-operability across the industry.
However, by relying on such inward looking inventive hierarchies, railroad companies lost
sight of the changing needs of the customers and of the opportunities offered by the
technologies available outside of their inner circles. It was the case of automatic train
control technologies, turning the benefits of technology such as air brakes into profit was
difficult (Usselman, 2002). Increase of train speed was demanded by customers, but, it was
difficult to take this into account in calculations. Similar problems occurred with automatic
signals and electric traction. Usselman (2002) concluded: ‘(o)perators of large systems, like all
people engaged in management have struggled to recogni(s)e when their business or industry faced
moments of transition, in which established technological trajectories and organisational paradigms
produced diminishing returns, or novel breakthroughs presented new threats or opened potentially
rewarding opportunities. The task of avoiding obsolescence and responding to changing
circumstances can prove especially difficult in large, system based industries, which acquired
substantial momentum in the form of fixed assets and perhaps more important, expectations on the
part of operators and consumers.’
The advent of the regime II of invention within the railroad industry during the late 19th
century in America can be interpreted thanks to Coase and Williamson. The importance
given to costs, drafting contracts and the attention given to technical specification appears
very much in line with their ideas. Some of the contractual hazards identified by Williamson
were at the source of this transformation.
The emerging regime of invention attempted to address hazards due to weak property
rights. Before patents were attributed to individuals who systematically granted licences to
the railroad companies. As technical complexity grew, the allocation of property rights
197
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

became more and more problematic and led to opportunistic behaviours. It resulted in an
increase in the number of litigations between inventors and railroad companies. Inventors
started to claim rights in a very opportunistic manner. The minutes of a case in the early
1880’s is quite explicit about the opportunistic behaviours: ‘(i)t was never the object of (the
patent) laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which
would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator of the ordinary
progress of manufacturers. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to
obstruct than stimulate invention (…). It creates a class of speculative schemers, who make it their
business to watch the advancing wave of improvement and gather its foam in the form of patented
monopolies which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country’ (Usselman,
2002).
Also connected to the regime of property rights, railroads felt threatened by what they saw
as a ‘strategic abuse type of hazard’. They were challenged by Westinghouse who was
opposed to licensing his brake system, as he wanted to exploit his invention himself. There
was also the case of Carnegie who had built some entry barriers by developing enormous
production capacity for steel production.
Some measurement hazards were extensively addressed by the work on technical
specification and the development of industry-wide standard.
The transaction costs theory, therefore, contributes to explain why the regime II was
preferred to regime I at some point in the history of the railroad industry. It, nevertheless,
fails to explain the network structure as part of the regime I. However, Williamson does
not have a hegemonic attitude and the pretention to explain every kind of situation: ’(t)iming
can be crucial if a party expects to be a ‘player’ when events are fast moving or if learning by doing
is essential. Although transaction cost economics can relate to some of the pertinent issues, such as
those posed by tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1962) and the limits of imitation (…) added apparatus is
needed to deal with the full set of issues that arise when responsiveness in real time rather than
equilibrium contracting, is the central concern’ (Williamson, 1996). These comments
characterize very well inventive activities, where costs may act as a constraint and time as a
discriminator between winners and losers. The A-E-P triptych of abilities might complement
198
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the transaction cost theory to address the situation where uncertainty cannot be solely
reduced to contractual hazards.
Section III. Comparative analysis between regime I and II of
invention
In order to understand the added value offered by the A-E-P triptych to describe an
industry structure and its evolution, a comparison between the two regimes of invention
studied above will be undertaken using the three abilities as discriminating criterion. It will
be done in two steps. The first offers a generic comparative analysis while the second one
uses the A-E-P triptych.
A. Comparative analysis of the regime I and II of inventive activities in
the American railroad industry
The following table (Table 4) aims at comparing and contrasting the two regimes of
inventive activities using a number of criterions from the above analysis. It highlights some
striking differences for the two regimes of invention.
199
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Table 4: Comparison between the regime I and regime II of inventive activities in the
American railroad industry
Criterion Regime I Regime II
Period Before the 1870’s After the 1870’s
Nature of technical Incremental plus some local Incremental with a focus on
change breakthrough standardisation and the use of
managerial innovation to
complement technical change
Source of invention Essentially suppliers Railroad companies and to some
extent suppliers as part of the
definition of specifications
Inventors Mainly machinists or trained Engineers
engineers acting as machinists
Basis for decision making Opinion of multiple experts Financial information and
technical analysis
Collective arrangements Networks of machinists Inventive hierarchies managed as
supporting inventive supporting mobility and corporate functions favouring
activities knowledge exchange structured and discipline
decision making
Magazines and journals Inter-firms cooperation through
diverse technical organisation
addressing issues related to
buyer supplier contact (technical
specifications) and issues related
to the interchangeability of cars
across the industry
Properties of invention Machinists Railroad companies
200
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B. The two regimes analysed through the triptych Attentiveness –
Experimentation – Persuasion
The following table (Table 5) re-interprets the two regimes from the perspective of the
triptych Attentiveness – Experimentation- Persuasion.
Table 5: Comparison between the regime I and regime II of inventive activities based
on the three abilities of inventors
Regime I Regime II
Attentiveness Outward looking, opportunities Inward looking, identification of internal
come from technical problems and opportunities for
development outside the standardisation
railroad company
This is the role of chief
engineers to monitor external
developments
Experimentation Tinkering, occasional test and Systematic campaign of
trials of new devices using ad Experimentations conducted with the
hoc approaches method used in science
Persuasion Internal dissemination of Systematic costing and financial analysis
advertising materials for of solutions
invention coming from outside
Discussions and debates Data collection and agreement of
amongst specialists technical experts in trade associations
The previous table shows that moving from the regime I to the regime II of invention can be
interpreted as moving from a degree of uncertainty to another. Uncertainty, as a concept
escapes widely normative taxonomic work. However, looking at specific instances, it is
possible to compare and contrast different situations. It is the case with the evolution of the
railroad industry. In the regime II, decisions were based on a cost and financial basis;
decision-making was closer to a situation of perfect information than in the regime I, which
was closer to a situation of ignorance.
During the formative period of the industry the degree of uncertainty in inventive activities
was high, inventions were incremental but numerous and assembled as part of a complex
but loosely coupled system. The machinists, the inventors of the regime I of in this industry,
201
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

had a specific approach to Attentiveness, Experimentation and Persuasion. They formed a
network of inventors who fed the attentive railroad companies. Together they could take
the industry through its early developments. During the late 19th century, inventive
hierarchies came into action. The engineers formed a different type of inventor capable of
address lower degree of uncertainty where cost optimisation was the sole focus. Their
approach to Attentiveness – Experimentation – Persuasion was routed in systematic
methods and fact based analysis. They were part of inventive hierarchies associated with
each of the railroad companies. They collaborated within trade associations as the
interchangeability of cars required agreements across the industry.
Transaction cost economics with its focus on contractual hazards help to understand why at
a given moment in time why a hierarchy might be preferred to a market. The
transformation from the regime I of invention to the regime II of invention within the
railroad industry during the late 19th century can be explained thanks to this approach.
However, the A-E-P triptych complements it by providing a richer picture of the
organisational structures and changes related to inventive activities that occurred within the
industry. It helps to characterize and understand non-contractual or informal mode of
organisations, such as the network of inventors encountered in the regime II of invention.
Finally, it helps to understand the transformation of an industry structure by looking at
different periods in its history, the nature of the uncertainty faced by inventors during each
of them and the collective arrangements used by agents to address this uncertainty.
Transaction cost economics provides a useful foundational framework for a theory of
organisations but it needs to be complemented by studies, using, for instance, the A-E-P
triptych in order to look at informal form of organisations or complex industry structures
where inventive activities play an important role. This approach on the organisation of
economic activities fits very well with the insights provided by Knight and the notion of
uncertainty he proposed. Further investigation in other industries could complement the
present one.
202
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Part 3. Inventing during the early 20th century in
America
Preliminary chapter - Overview of the early 20th century
The 19th century saw the emergence and development of large scale systems, such as the
railroad, the telegraph, electricity and the telephone. Different regimes of invention have
emerged with (1) inventors in machine shops contributing collectively, as part of networks
for the development of loosely coupled systems such as the railroad or the telegraph, (2)
independent inventors in their laboratories, creating more integrated systems, such as the
electric light and the telephone and (3) engineers within inventive hierarchies optimising and
standardising the railroad system, at the end of the century. The A-E-P triptych provided an
overview of the nature of inventive activities in these different regimes to understand why
and how they evolved over time.
The third historical period studied investigates the rise of industrial laboratories during the
early 20th century in the United States of America. In its final pages, the third part looks
beyond this initial period to map out the history of transistor and semi-conductor
technology and examines how different collective arrangements contributed to the
discovery, mainstreaming and exploitation of technologies. During the first quarter of the
20th century, science started to play an important role in inventive activities undertaken by
firms, at least in specific sectors such as the electric, the communication or the chemical
ones. Scientific developments, during this period, held more predictive power than before, a
predictive power that could readily help to shape practical applications. Industrial
laboratories, an emerging collective arrangement able to perform expensive
Experimentations, are at the centre stage of the present analysis.
The first part studies three career inventors working for established firms and provides an
analysis of the A-E-P triptych in the context of a principal-agent relationship : Thomas
Midgley who was employed by General Motors (Chapter I, Section I), William Coolidge
203
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

who worked for General Electric Research laboratory (Chapter I, Section II) and
Wallace Carothers from DuPont (Chapter I, Section III). This new breed of inventors,
who can be called ‘corporate scientists’, had to be attentive to what mattered to their
principal while remaining open to scientific and technical developments occurring outside of
their firm. Science and theory contributed to Experimentation without replacing serendipity
or trial and error. Inventors and their principals exploited the positive image of science to
persuade decision makers in firms and government of the value of science and consumers of
the value of their invention. At the same time, such inventors became more and more
capable of building on an increasing specialisation of knowledge and to exploit their scientific
authority in order to contribute to the creation of potentially dangerous information
asymmetries that benefited the monopolistic ambitions of the firms that employed them.
Midgley was a career inventor operating in the automotive industry. He was chosen as he is
a transition figure from the 19th century independent inventor to the 20th century scientist
working in an industrial laboratory. His two major inventions, leaded fuel and Freon, created
controversies that no other career inventors could illustrate better.
Coolidge was chosen because he worked for the first industrial laboratory established in
America: the General Electric research laboratory. It was renowned as the ‘House of magic’
and known for performing advanced science when in reality it was mainly concentrating on
practical inventive activities that contributed to the business needs of General Electric.
Carothers was a career inventor who illustrates, for many, the successful investment by
large firms in basic 98 research, as a source of future revenue. However, this success was
partly due to some lucky circumstances, unexpected experimental outcomes and
controversies over the value of ‘Pure Science’. He was chosen for this reason and to offer an
example from the chemical industry.
98
The expression ‘basic research’ is used throughout this part. In some citations the expression ‘fundamental
research’ is used and should be understood as a synonym of ‘basic research’. The expression ‘pure research’
was specific to DuPont and is used accordingly in the present document.
204
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The second chapter (Chapter II), dedicated to collective arrangement in inventive
activities, studies how two metaphors, the one of Smith, the ‘invisible hand’, and the one of
Chandler, ‘the visible hand’, could be complemented, when looking at inventive activities,
characterised by uncertainty. We will propose the metaphor of the ‘Soft Hand’, building on
one of the abilities of the triptych, Attentiveness. The ‘Soft Hand’ operates in a context of a
principal-agent relationship. The principal encourages information exchanges within the
laboratory, within the firm, and with the outside world. Such exchanges can be
characterised as a particular market where information is freely exchanged by inventors and
other agents in which the future value of information is ignored. Therefore, at the same
time, a hierarchy guides and controls the work of inventors and a market of free
information nourishes them with new ideas and knowledge. The ‘Soft Hand’ appears as a
response to an organisational failure caused by the principal-agent relationship: secrecy. The
study uses the example of General Electric research laboratory, and the work of Willis
Whitney, its director.
The third part (Chapter III) covers a period that goes from the early years of the 20th
century to the 1970’s. It investigates the history of inventive activities within A.T.T. 99 and
what happened in terms of discovery, diffusion and exploitation of one of its major
inventions, the transistor. The analysis outlines the rise of industrial laboratories but, also,
the limits they met, and the important historical transformations within the evolution of
inventive practices. The concept of regime of invention 100 will be used to characterise a
series of situations and inventive practices throughout the century. The promoters of
industrial laboratories created the erroneous belief that independent inventors were
definitely outperformed. The passion for science strengthened by the American victory in
the second World War led to the isolation, or, at least, to a lack of Attentiveness, of the
scientists involved in inventive activities. The transistor needed different regimes of
invention than the one offered by A.T.T. research laboratory to realise its full economic
potential. It needed specialised firms, such as Texas Instruments, attentive to its immediate
new applications and production issues.
99
American Telephone & Telegraph Company.
100
A regime of invention is a coherent set of inventive practices used by a group of individuals at a particular
point in time and in a given situation. When there are evidences that a regime of invention can be more than a
special case, it will be considered as a collective arrangement.
205
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

It also required inventive networks, such as the ones that emerged in the Silicon Valley to
explore its future applications. The rise of industrial laboratories led some people to believe
that a hegemonic regime of invention had emerged: the ‘industrial laboratory’. It was certainly
a misconception as the different regimes of inventions complemented each other, they were
appropriate to specific situations that will be characterised using a taxonomy of uncertainty.
This third part shows that the A-E-P triptych can help to explain some of the historical
transformations that occurred within the economy, throughout the 20th century, by
investigating the role and nature of a diversity of collective arrangements.
However, before moving to the study of the three career inventors, some elements of
context that impacted inventive activities throughout the 20th century in America should be
presented. Four salient facts are encountered throughout this study: (1) the investment in
science by large firms to maintain their competitiveness; (2) the developments in physics
that offered predictive power that could be harnessed for practical applications; (3) the role
of war in stimulating investment in science and technology and, finally, (4) the evolution of
the needs of a rising wealthier class. The focus here is on the early years of the 20th century,
but, on some occasions, it looks beyond this period.
(1) First, America was the country where large firms started to invest in applied and basic
scientific research in order to respond to competitive pressures and answer governmental
actions motivated by their monopolistic behaviours (Mowery, 1990). This change is
fundamental, as some firms moved away from buying inventions and started to coordinate
uncertain inventive activities by themselves. It motivates the choice of America for the
present study, the country in which this phenomenon occurred for the first time. Such
investments in scientific activities allowed the performance of expensive experiments and
complex inventive activities by firms, in the context of increased specialisation of inventive
practices and advancement of science.
(2) Second, the understanding of our physical world went through some far-reaching re-
interpretation during the first 20 years of the 20thcentury. At the end of the 19thcentury,
physicists believed that their understanding of matter was complete, thanks to the progress
206
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

conducted by Maxwell in electrodynamics. Nothing new of significance was expected
(Eckert & Schubert, 1986). However, a series of observations brought doubts within the
scientific community. In 1895, X-rays were discovered by Rontgen, then Planck worked on
radiant heat at the turn of the century, Einstein started to develop quantum hypothesis that
had to wait until 1916 to be confirmed. The internal structure of the atom was understood
thanks to the work of Rutherford, Bohr and Sommerfeld. During the late 19th century,
inventors were able to test the properties of materials, such the hardness and ductility of
steel measured in the railroad industry. With the new physics and its predictive power,
inventors were able, using the periodic table of elements, to select a small set of materials
and compounds with specific properties before moving to the experimental stage. Different
examples of this predictive power will be developed during the course of the analysis.
(3) Third, the two World Wars had a profound impact on inventive activities. Going to war
called for new equipment, machines and operational procedures. Science and technology did
not impact the outcome of the First World War, but the reverse is true. With the war, the
American government started to intensively promote and fund research activities in the
military field (Mendelsohn, in Krige & Pestre, 2003). In between the two wars, German
scientists left their home country, sometimes to seek employment in America, and brought
their methods and practices with them. The Second World War mobilised thousands of
researchers in America. Science was perceived as a decisive factor in the ally victory. A
passion for science submerged American decision makers and opened an avenue for basic
research performed by business.
(4) Fourth, industrialisation and consumption worked hand in hand during the early years of
the 20th century to offer new opportunities for inventive activities to prove their worth.
Industrialisation led America on a path of rapid economic development. The automobile
market grew rapidly, the number of engineers, doctors, lawyers increased over the years.
Even with difficult times in agriculture and with the financial crisis in 1907 and, later, in 1929
which demonstrated that prosperity was not secured, American citizens enjoyed increasing
wealth.
207
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter I- Inventors at the age of predictive science
Section I. Thomas Midgley
Thomas Midgley (1889-1944) is a transition figure between the Edison-type of inventor of
the late 19th century and the scientist-inventor fond of basic research of the 20th century. He
made two significant inventions throughout his career. First, the leaded fuel that prevented
cars from knocking and improved their performance at a time when the automotive market
was booming, and, secondly, the Freon (or CFC), a gas used for refrigeration and air-
conditioning.
Midgley was born in 1889 into a family of inventors and, according to Kettering (1947), he
descended from James Watt. He graduated from Cornell University, in 1911, as a
mechanical engineer. He lived most of his life in Columbus, Ohio. He started as a draftsman
and designer for the National Cash Register Company (NCR), a company specialised in
retail and accounting equipment. Charles Kettering headed the industrial laboratory, before
he left to found his own firm specialised in automotive equipment, the Dayton Engineering
Laboratories Company (Delco). After a year at NCR, Midgley then spent four years in
charge of the research department of his father’s tyre company. In 1916, when the family
business collapsed, Midgley went to work for Kettering in Delco’s research laboratory 101.
The research laboratory was established as a standalone firm and named ‘Dayton Research
Laboratories’ in 1916. It was taken over by General Motors in 1920 with the other Dayton
interests of Kettering (Midgley, 2001). Midgley spent the remainder of his career working
for the automotive company. Right from the start of his employment with Kettering, he
searched for an antiknock compound that would prevent unpleasant explosions and
101
Midgley described his decision as follows: ‘I suddenly found myself out of work with a wife and two children
to support and very little money in the bank. I made a quick trip around the country contacting a variety of
people in various industries but without finding a job to my liking. Upon my return home I arrived at the most
important decision of my life. I decided to get a job working for Mr. Kettering, irrespective of the size of the
salary and let nature takes its course’ (McGrayne, 2001).
208
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

inefficiencies within engines; it led him to invent leaded fuel using a compound called TEL:
Tetraethyl lead.
Leaded fuel was regarded by Americans as a great invention 102. As the population was
becoming rapidly hungry for efficient and powerful cars, leaded fuel appeared as a magic
cure. At the same time, the poisonous character of leaded fuel was feared and debated by
specialists, but the rising middle class of America did not pay much attention to this threat.
After inventing leaded fuel, Midgley became Vice-president of the Ethyl Corporation and
Vice president of the Ethyl-Dow Chemical Company, a joint venture which produced
bromine. When General Motors’ research activities were consolidated in Detroit, Midgley
refused a Vice-President position in the automotive manufacturer. He was wealthy and
remained as a consultant to the company. At the age of 41, after the invention of Freon, he
became Vice-President of Kinetic Chemicals Inc. which was in charge of its production.
Freon, Midgley’s other major invention helped to spread the use of air-conditioning,
prevented food poisoning and enabled efficient vaccination on a large scale. It had a major
impact on the life of many people before threatening the following generations103.
After discovering the antiknock properties of leaded fuel, Midgley wanted to understand
why it had such properties and Boyd, who worked with Midgley, spent some time exploring
the issue in the early 1930’s. It was the first piece of basic research conducted by General
Motors.
Later in his career, Midgley lost his interest for commercial inventive activities and, General
Motors had difficulty in motivating him focus on them. His final years of work were devoted
to pure research with rubber. He studied the composition of natural and synthetic rubber
102
Midgley was also considered as a hero after the Second World War By using TEL, ‘American and British
planes had one third more power than German and Japanese planes, Allied pilots took off in one fifth the space;
climbed 40 percent faster out of antiaircraft fire; flew higher; and could carry 20 to 30 percent more bombs or
fly 20 to 30 percent farther’ (McGrayne, 2001). Together with CFC, which helped to prevent malaria by acting
as an insect repellant, it can also be said that Midgley’ leaded fuel played a significant role in turning the planet
into a global battlefield.
103 Indeed, the dramatic impact of Freon on the ozone layer was only discovered in 1973.
209
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

and the chemistry of vulcanisation but without seeking any direct application. He published a
series of papers on these topics and considered this work as ‘most scientific of all his
endeavour’ (Kettering, 1947). At the Ohio State University, he established a laboratory at his
own expense and supported the salary of his co-workers.
Overall, Midgley patented more than 100 inventions. Although he started his career as a
mechanical engineer with a hands-on approach to invention, throughout time, he moved
towards basic research in chemistry. Midgley can be labelled as a ‘transition figure’, he was
employed by a company but continued to act as an independent inventor as leaded fuel
made him rich
Midgley expressed his views about the future of industrial research in a collection of speech
published by Standard Oil Development Co: ‘I am of the opinion that as time goes on, more
and more research of the fundamental type will be necessary’ (Standard Oil Development Co,
1945). He defined science as a ‘reproducible experiment’. Amongst the challenges of
conducting basic research, he highlighted two main ones: (1) overseeing research activities
appropriately: ‘(t)he obviously controlling factor in the capacity of the research director to maintain
an efficient understanding of the various problems for which he is responsible. In a way, this
capacity is similar to that of a chess master playing simultaneous chess. Up to a certain number of
games, he is able to maintain a high playing standard. But, with few more games added, the result
is little more than a semi-automatic moving of pieces’ (Standard Oil Development Co, 1945);
and (2) locating the research activities: ‘(t)here is no ideal location. There are advantages in
being near the production centre, there are advantages being away from it. There is no advantage
that I am aware of in complete isolation’ (Standard Oil Development Co, 1945). In fact, he
sometimes recommended having two laboratories, one close to and one far from the plant.
He died at the age of 55 after four years of paralysis, allegedly caused by polio. He was
found strangled by the harness he had invented to get him out of bed, almost certainly a
suicide.
Throughout his career of inventor, he demonstrated his inventive abilities. He was
optimistic, curious and imaginative. One of his friends said that he had ‘(t)en ideas a minute,
210
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

nine of them screwy but the tenth a Lulu’ (McGrayne, 2001). He had a gift for making sense of
data and more generally observation [Attentiveness]. He invented instruments and
measurement devices: a hydrometer for cars, a bouncing-pin indicator, visual observation
and spectroscopic analysis of engine combustion, measurement of radiant energy
[Experimentation]. On one occasion, he was even keen to experiment on himself: after
particles of metal had spattered into the cornea of his eyes, the doctor was unable to
remove them; Midgley bathed his eye with mercury which formed an alloy with the metal
pieces and extracted them [Experimentation]. Midgley was also part of many societies
where he could meet his counterparts; 104 he held the position of President of the American
Chemical society. He served as Vice Chairman of the National Inventor Council during the
war and participated in the National Defence Research Committee [Attentiveness-
Persuasion]. He was a natural showman and gave entertaining after-dinner lectures on
science [Persuasion]. He also applied his inventive skills outside of his work, the young
Midgley and his baseball teammate tested substances to improve the curve of a spitball, etc.
He experimented with different techniques to grow grass on his property and was widely
admired by his neighbours for his achievement in this field. He built metal castings of ant
tunnels to study their social organisation.
At the start of his career, Midgley did not choose the problems he worked on. They were
brought to him by representatives from the company for which he worked. Later in his
career, it became more and more difficult for the management of General Motors to get
him to work on practical problems of interest to the company. This chapter will start by
investigating how Midgley’ Attentiveness was channelled by General Motors’ top
management, and, particularly, its research director Charles Kettering, and the DuPont
family who owned a majority of shares in the automotive company (A. Attentiveness: the
firm as a guide).
Then, we will see how he first adopted a trial and error approach to Experimentation and,
then, used the periodic table of elements as a guide for his quest. The periodic table of
104
It included: the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, the Society of Automotive
Engineers and the American Society for Testing Materials and some other clubs (Kettering, 1947).
211
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

elements was a useful piece of scientific knowledge for inventors like Midgley, who searched
for materials with specific characteristics (B. Experimentation: under the guidance of
the periodic table).
Finally, we will investigate Midgley’s role in the debate around the poisonous character of
TEL. and at how the systematic Persuasion effort organised by General Motors led to the
creation of deadly information asymmetries (C. Persuasion: creating information
asymmetries).
A. Attentiveness: the firm as a guide
Midgley’s Attentiveness has been guided and influenced by Kettering, whom he called ‘Boss’,
by General Motors, the company he worked for, and by the DuPont family, who owned
General Motors at that time. The invention of an antiknock fuel was not the result of
Midgley’s personal interest for this technical puzzle; it was the consequence of the firm’s
interest. Midgley was not an engineer trying to optimise an existing system or an
independent inventor on his own trail. He was a scientist who was expected to come up
with significant inventions that would serve the business.
Kettering started as an independent inventor and came up with the electric self-starter, a
major automotive invention that gave the final advantage to the internal combustion engine
over the electric or the steam engine 105. In 1912, his business, DELCO, equipped the
Cadillac of General Motors 106, the rising competitor of Ford Motor Cars. Cars powered by
the internal combustion engine were subject to a strange and disturbing noise called ‘the
knock’ 107, which was sometimes blamed on Kettering’s electric system. Kettering understood
105
Hand cranking was not necessary any more with the self-starter. Most Americans, including women, could
now drive thanks to this invention.
106
Kettering had established the Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (DELCO) to manufacture engines.
107
Bernstein (2002) described the knock as follows: ‘an annoying ‘putt-putt’ or ‘ping’ sound, overheating, jerky
motion, and sluggish response. The problem gets worse when a strain is put upon the engine, such as when
accelerating or climbing a hill. Besides making noise and increasing pollution, knock damages engines and saps
their efficiency. And the higher the engine’s compression, the worse the problem gets’.
212
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

that the fuel was causing the knock, and not his ignition system 108. His company also
produced the Delco-Light engine, to generate household electricity and he faced a similar
knock (Bernstein, 2002).
Midgley joined Kettering in 1916 the same year DELCO was bought by General Motors 109.
According to Kettering (1947), during a conversation about the knock, he suggested to
Midgley: ‘(W)hy don't you get the old apparatus out of my closet and see what you can find out?’.
The ‘old apparatus’ mainly referred to a monograph. After some work, Midgley discovered
by luck, in late 1916, that iodine stopped the knock. Iodine had what was going to be called
later a high octane level. However, iodine was not an economically viable fuel.
Kettering and Midgley also explored the use of ethanol as a fuel or as an addititive to
gasoline. Following a joint war effort with the Army Air Corps, in 1917, Kettering and
Midgley believed that ethanol 110 was a convenient solution 111. They also discovered that
stopping the knock was not the only benefit; it also enabled higher compression, therefore
promising power increase and fuel savings for the now booming car industry. In 1919,
General Motors bought Kettering's Dayton research laboratory and appointed him as Vice
President of research for the renamed General Motors Research Corporation (Kitma,
2000). With the temporary fear, around 1920, that oil could be running out 112, ethanol
appeared more and more as a viable alternative or a good complement, including to General
Motors Executives (Kitma, 2000). Thomas Midgley filed a patent in February 1920 for a
particular blend of alcohol and gasoline and K.W. Zimmerschied of General Motors
headquarters wrote to Kettering that the use of alcohol fuel ‘is getting more serious every day
in connection with export cars, and anything we can do towards building our carburettors so they
can be easily adapted to alcohol will be appreciated by all.’ (Kitma, 2000). In October 1921,
Thomas Midgley highlighted, at a meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers, the
108
The first antiknock fuel was produced in 1913 using a process called thermal cracking, however, its
production required comprehensive investments.
109
General Motors, the car manufacturer, was established in 1909.
110
Ethanol had been used as a fuel since 1826.
111
In 1918, Kettering asserted in Scientific American ‘(I)t is now definitely established that alcohol can be
blended with gasoline to produce a suitable motor fuel’ (Kitma, 2000).
112
An internal General Motors report warned in 1920: ‘(T)his year will see the maximum production of
petroleum that this country will ever know’ (Kitma, 2000). As the production of automobiles was increasing
rapidly there was a fear that the natural reserve of oil would last no more than 20 years but new fields were soon
discovered (Bernstein, 2002).
213
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

benefits of ethanol: ‘clean burning and freedom from any carbon deposit (...) tremendously high
compression under which alcohol will operate without knocking (...). Because of the possible high
compression, the available horsepower is much greater with alcohol than with gasoline’ (Kitma,
2000).
In the meantime, the DuPont family had increased its share in General Motors since 1914.
By 1920, it controlled more than 35% of the shares 113. With sufficient power in its hand, the
family started to establish a new style of management. Alfred Sloan, Executive Vice
President, made things clear to Kettering in September of 1920: ‘(a)lthough [the Research
Corporation] is not a productive unit and a unit that is supposed to make a profit, nevertheless the
more tangible result we get from it the stronger its position will be (...). It may be inferred at some
future time(...).that we are spending too much money down there [in Dayton] and being in a
position to show what benefits had accrued to the corporation would strengthen our position
materially’ (Kitma, 2000). Hence, General Motors threatened a few times to withdraw the
funding from the antiknock research and inventive activities. Once, Kettering and Midgley
were even given one week to demonstrate progress (McGrayne, 2001).
This shift of ownership appears to coincide with a change in the direction of the research
conducted by Kettering and Midgley. According to Kettering (1947), ‘(a)fter the war, we again
took up in a serious way the search for a practical antiknock agent. Although neither the discovery
of iodine as a knock suppressor nor the synthesis of cyclohexane for airplane fuel was put to
practical use, they did have this important effect. They changed Midgley’s principle interest and
activity from the field of engineering to that of chemistry’. With the discovery of the antiknock
properties of TetraEthyl Lead (TEL) in December 1921, the interest for ethanol immediately
vanished. According to Kitma (2000), General Motors ‘couldn't dictate an infrastructure that
could supply ethanol in the volumes that might be required. Equally troubling, any idiot with a still
could make it at home, and in those days, many did. And ethanol, unlike TEL, couldn't be patented;
it offered no profits for GM. Moreover, the oil companies hated it, a powerful disincentive for the
fledgling GM, which was loath to jeopardize relations with these mighty power brokers. Surely the
113
The DuPont Company was founded by Éleuthère Irénée du Pont (1771–1834) in Delaware in 1802 to
produce black powder and later other explosives, which remained the company’s main products until the 20th
century, when it began to make many other chemicals as well. The DuPont family grew rich during the First
World War thanks to the sales of explosives (Hounshell & Smith, 1988).
214
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

DuPont family's growing interest in oil and oil fields, as it branched out from its gunpowder roots
into the oil-dependent chemical business, weighed on many GM directors' minds.’
It would be, however, misleading to believe that the Attentiveness and decisions of someone
like Midgley were fully constrained by the interest of the corporation for which he worked.
It appears that Midgley continued to believe that ethanol was ‘the fuel of the future’, as he
wrote in a memo in 1922 about alcohol production in Mexico (Kitma, 2000).
Another episode shows Kettering and Midgley resisting some suggestions from Stine who
headed the DuPont Research Department in the early 1920’s. Stine had tried to persuade
the General Motors’ management that his department should perform chemical research
activities for General Motors 114. Stine 115 advocated conducting basic research into fuels as
opposed to, what he called, the ‘cut and try’ approach of Kettering and Midgley (Hounshell &
Smith, 1988). Midgley and, even more, Kettering resisted this proposal and continued their
efforts by themselves.
At the start of the 20th century, more inventors started to be directly employed by firms. In
many ways, it enabled their work by providing them access to resources they would have
had difficulty to mobilise otherwise. At the same time, it constrained their efforts: they had
to work on the problems that the management of the company wanted them to tackle, they
were expected to deliver results by managers who did not always understand the practical
difficulties they encountered in their inventive activities, and, sometimes, as it appears to be
the case for ethanol, they had to abandon specific options and pursue others prescribed by
the top management of the organisation. The visible hand of management was pointing its
fingers in specific directions and inventors like Midgley had to follow them. However, we
have seen that Midgley and Kettering could ignore suggestions that were not directly made
by their top management, as the episode with Stine, from DuPont, illustrates. Later in his
career, Midgley also acquired enough bargaining power, such as his reputation and wealth,
to resist the requests from top management to exercise his abilities to solve practical
114
Fairly early in the discussion, Stine recognised the existence of research capabilities in General Motors. He
therefore focused on reaching an agreement on the conduct of joint research.
115
The role of Stine in the Du Pont research organisation will be further investigated with the study of another
career inventor: Carothers.
215
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

problems. All this tends to confirm that the ‘agency theory’ 116 can be a relevant framework
when studying inventive activities conducted within a firm.
B. Experimentation: under the guidance of the periodic table
In this section, we will look at how the periodic table of elements, a piece of scientific
information that helped Midgley to discard many options when planning experiments in
order to rapidly reach a satisfying solution.
Midgley’s first steps towards the discovery of an antiknock fuel were very much a
combination of luck and systematism. He discovered by luck the antiknock effect of iodine
and, then, started to experiment with thousands of different compounds. Midgley attributed
the discovery of TEL's antiknock properties to ‘luck and religion, as well as the application of
science’ (Kitma, 2000).
When Midgley started to enquire about the knock, he found that he needed to confirm that
the fuel was at the origin of the problem. He used a Delco-Light engine and developed an
instrument 117 capable of photographing the combustion. His observations showed that the
knock was caused by an abrupt rise in pressure after ignition118 .
Kettering and Midgley developed an erroneous belief that sent them fortuitously on the
right tracks. Indeed, they suspected that the knock was caused by premature combustion
due to high vapour pressure. They hoped that dyeing the fuel with a dark colour, such as
116
The ‘Agency theory’ is presented by Eisenhardt (1989) as follows: ‘specifically, agency theory is directed at
the ubiquitous agency relationship, in which one party (the principal) delegates work to another (the agent),
who perform that work. Agency theory attempts to describe this relationship using the metaphor of a contract’.
117
The instrument was ingenious but fairly rudimentary. It used for instance a tomato as a film drum
(McGrayne, 2001). It was described by Kettering as follows, in a book written by a descendant of Midgley:
‘(w)e took two little pieces of Lath, two shingle nails, and a tomato can. Out of those parts we made a film drum
that could be rotated by hand in the path of the beam of light from the indicator. We wrapped a piece of
photographic paper around the tomato can drum and secured it with rubber bands. Then with the engine
running, I spun the tomato can on its shingle nail pivot and Midgley operated the shutter of the indicator’
(Midgley, 2001). These efforts to understand what happens inside a combustion engine highlight the ability of
Midgley to observe a phenomenon and create appropriate instruments.
118
Midgley described what happened as follows: ‘(w)hen a spark occurs in a cylinder, a wall of flame spreads
out from this point… (However) when any gas is heated either it must expand or its pressure must rise. The
layer of gas just in front of the flame is so intensely heated that it rises to a very high pressure, and in some
cases (…) the gas in front of the flame wall is subjected to such high pressure that it goes off with a bang that is
detonation’ (McGrayne, 2001).
216
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

red, would eliminate the problem. Their reasoning was based on an analogy. Kettering
explained: ‘we both happened to know that the leaves of the trailing arbutus are red on the back
and that they grow and bloom under the snow’ (Kettering, 1947). They expected that the
coloured fuel would absorb the radiant heat, as the red-backed leaves do from the sun. The
analogy was flawed, the use of most red additives would have proven useless. However,
Midgley could not find red dye in the laboratory 119 and an assistant suggested using iodine as
it dissolves in oil. The effect was certainly rewarding for Kettering and Midgley: the knock
stopped. However, iodine was corrosive and too expensive to be used on an industrial
scale. Midgley soon discovered that other red dyes did not work but that colourless iodine
did the trick. An important lesson had emerged: it was not necessary to redesign the engine,
changing the fuel composition would certainly offer a solution (Bernstein, 2002). Midgley,
therefore, embarked on a ‘hit and miss’ strategy with no guidance from science or common
knowledge. He started to test every substance he could find 120, hoping to replicate the
antiknock property of the iodine, ‘from melted butter and camphor to Ethyl acetate and
aluminium chloride.’ Unfortunately, ‘most of them had no more effect than spitting in the Great
Lakes’ (Bernstein, 2002).
As part of this systematic search, Midgley and his team found out that aniline had a stronger
antiknock effect than iodine 121. Unfortunately, its smell was horrible, and adding aroma did
not help 122. While he was travelling, Kettering heard about selenium which demonstrated
positive results but it was corrosive. It was also abandoned. From selenium, Midgley and his
team moved to tellurium, and, finally, to diethyl telluride, which, in April 1921, proved 24
times as effective as aniline. Tellurium was unfortunately not abundant and smelt horribly
119
The laboratory they used was fairly basic. It was situated on the second floor of an old tobacco warehouse
and was spartanly equipped (Kettering, 1947). It dit not have running water (McGrayne, 2001).
120
It is unclear how many compounds were tested, ‘(A)s Professor William Kovarik of Radford University has
observed, confusion reigns in part because the lab's day-to-day test diaries have never been released to the
public by the General Motors Institute (GMI) archive. In the words of one archivist there, GM's lead archives
have been ‘sanitized.’ One 1925 article in the Literary Digest put the number at 2,500 compounds tested, while
The Story of Ethyl Gasoline, a 1927 pamphlet released by a company Midgley would help found, states that
33,000 were studied. Another time, he claimed 14,991 elements were examined, while a 1980 Ethyl corporation
statement set the number at 144’ (Kitma, 2000).
121
Even though aniline was finally abandoned, Kettering tried to convince Du Pont for some time to invest in its
production (Hounshell & Smith, 1988).
122
Midgley acknowledged: ‘I do not think that humanity would put up with this smell, even if it meant twice as
much gasoline mileage’ (McGrayne, 2001).
217
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

like garlic 123. Kettering recalled this search for the antiknock fuel with lyricism: ‘(n)ew
chemical compounds were imported from overseas and many other new ones were made in our
own laboratories. Meals were forgotten, sleep was lost and the happy families of the researchers
ceased to be ‘happy’. And just as everyone was becoming absolutely discouraged, an experiment
produced a bare teaspoonful of a rare compound called - tetra-ethyl lead’ (Kettering, 1947).
Midgley was now using the periodic table of elements as a guide for his search. He recalled:
‘(w)hat had seemed at time a hopeless quest, covering many years and costing a considerable
amount of money, rapidly turned into a ‘fox hunt’. Predictions began fulfilling themselves instead of
fizzling out’ (McGrayne, 2001). It was in fact a new version of the periodic table of the
elements that helped Midgley. It had been prepared by a boyhood friend of Midgley who was
now working for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It was organised around Niels
Bohr’s theory of the atom and it organised elements according to their valence, their ability
to combine with each other. Elements that had displayed antiknock properties were all in
the lower right hand corner of the table and the heaviest elements appeared to be the most
efficient antiknock substance. Midgley had realised that it was not the physical
characteristics, such as density or volatility, of the antiknock that made it antiknock but its
molecular structure (Midgley, 2001).
Then, 23 compounds were created and tested within 15 weeks. Midgley began with tin. The
antiknock effect of its Ethyl derivative was very satisfying. The periodic tables suggested that
lead could be even more effective. On 9 December, 1921, Midgley’s assistant, Carroll
Hochwalt, prepared and tested a small quantity of tetraethyl lead (TEL). TEL offered
complete knock resistance with only one part in 1,360. The hunt for an antiknock fuel had
reached a happy end. TEL was cheap, efficient and without any disturbing odour. The power,
fuel consumption of engines using leaded fuel, was also significantly improved. However,
some problems remained, and it took two years to Midgley to get rid of them and to
industrialise the production process. As TEL was leaving a deposit of oxide in the engine
cylinder, Midgley and his team looked for a chemical that would react with the oxide and
123
17 years after the experiments with tellurium, the records of the experiments still stank (Bernstein, 2002).
This did not however prevent the army from using some of Midgley’s stinking fuels (McGrayne, 2001).
218
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

transform it. Bromine was the answer to the problem and Midgley had to invent a process
to extract bromine from sea water (Midgley, 2001).
It took Midgley only three days to make his second important invention, a telling illustration
of the predictive power science can sometimes offer to inventive activities. In the 1920’s,
refrigeration units used dangerous chemicals like sulphur dioxide and ammonia. People were
very much afraid of refrigerators because of the dangers publicised by some horrific
accidents and deaths. Even hospitals feared their use. Kettering was asked by a
representative from Frigidaire 124 to look for a new solution that could help to bring air-
conditioning to public space. Once more, when Midgley got involved, he relied on the
periodic table as a guide for his search. He searched for a stable, cheap non-toxic, non-
inflammable, non-corrosive compound with a boiling point between 0 and -40°C 125
(McGrayne, 2001). He discovered dichloroflouromethane, or CFC, later trademarked
‘Freon’ by DuPont 126127. Scientific information helped him to discard many useless
experiments and to progress rapidly towards a solution.
When Midgley started his inventive effort on TEL, he had in front of him a multitude of
compounds, all potential solutions that required to testing. The periodic table of elements
changed this situation. It helped him to focus on the few elements that were likely to bring
the results for which he was looking for. The periodic table of elements was a scientific
piece of knowledge that proved to be of great help to find relevant materials or compound.
Scientific knowledge, as illustrated here, does not provide an immediate answer or solution
but can help to discard many useless options and allow testing of the most promising ones.
124
Frigidaire was founded as the Guardian Frigerator Company in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and developed the first
self-contained refrigerator.
125
Refrigerant were clustered on the right hand side of the periodic table, with the least inflammable on the far
right and the least toxic (light) element at the top. Fluorine immediately appeared as the potential non-toxic non-
inflammable candidate that had not been used before. In fact, fluorine is toxic but not all of its compounds are
(McGrayne, 2001).
126
The name Freon covers several chemical compounds, which contain a combination of carbon, chlorine and
fluorine also known as CFC.
127
Henne, who worked with Midgley recalled on testing the toxicity of the product: ‘(t)he first thing that we did,
we did ourselves. We sniffed it and we survived’ and further commenting on testing it on a guinea pig: ‘(i)t was
the stuff we had sniffed ourselves so that it was safe to give to the guinea pig, since we survived’ (Migley, 2001).
Out of the first four batches produced, three were toxic and killed animals exposed to the vapours. It was
however due to impurity in the compound (Kettering, 1947). Frigidaire executives did not want Midgley in their
factory and Kettering had to build for him a separate laboratory next to the plant (McGrayne, 2001).
219
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

However, all inventive activities do not benefit from such valuable scientific information and
all scientific knowledge does not provide a predictive power similar to the one of the
periodic table of elements.
C. Persuasion: creating information asymmetries
This section explores the controversy that surrounded TEL after it was launched. Midgley
was enrolled by Kettering, the top management of General Motors and DuPont to create a
deadly information asymmetry.
If the impact of CFC on the ozone layer was discovered four decades after its invention, the
poisonous effects of TEL were known when its antiknock properties were discovered.
Indeed, TEL was first discovered by a German chemist in 1854 and was immediately
recognised as a deadly substance. Lead is a neurotoxin with sickening and, potentially, deadly
effects. It can cause blindness, brain damage, kidney diseases, convulsions and cancer. It can
only be detected through chemical analysis and does not disappear over time128.
In the 1920’s, the deadly effects of lead on factory workers heavily exposed to it were
known 129. The long term effects on the population of a low intensity exposition were still
considered uncertain 130. At that time, lead was already used in paint, water pipe, food cans,
etc. Before the launch of leaded fuel under the trademark Ethyl, specialists started to raise
concerns and worries about the toxic nature of the product. General Motors, having
decided to make the most out of what looked like a hit product, downplayed the risk.
Midgley played an important role in this organised Persuasion effort that presented leaded
fuel as harmless and as a ‘gift of god’ for the American people.
128
‘A 1985 EPA study estimated that as many as 5,000 Americans died annually from lead-related heart disease
prior to the country's lead phaseout’ (Kitma, 2000).
129 In March 1922, Pierre du Pont, President of General Motors wrote to his brother Irénée du Pont, Chairman
of Du Pont that TEL is ‘a colourless liquid of sweetish odour, very poisonous if absorbed through the skin,
resulting in lead poisoning almost immediately’ (Kitma, 2000).
130
Kettering said ‘(i)n putting out new things, troubles are not the exception. They are the rule. That is why I
have said on so many occasions that the price of progress is trouble’ (Midgley, 2001).
220
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Midgley was a real showman who put his talent at the service of his invention and of his
employer 131. When visitors came to the Dayton Laboratory, Midgley enjoyed playing
‘abracadabra’ tricks with antiknock compounds to impress them. Some years later, salesmen
used the same tricks to demonstrate the power of TEL 132. They, for instance, poured a few
drops of it on a piece of cloth and waved it in front of a knocking engine. The knock
instantly stopped (Bernstein, 2002).
When Midgley started to work with TEL, the doctors he consulted tended to be alarmist.
Midgley considered commissioning studies from two universities: Harvard Medical School
and Columbia University. However, the two university studies were never commissioned
(McGrayne, 2001). Midgley, who was not a toxicologist, conducted his own analysis and
found no lead in exhaust fumes. He concluded that there was no risk. Instruments at that
time were not able to detect tiny traces of metal in the air. Midgley tended to ignore the
subsequent warnings (McGrayne, 2001). The public health authorities started to worry,
following some serious cases of lead poisoning during the pilot productions of TEL. The
potential accumulation of lead along roads with heavy traffic and tunnels also raised their
concerns, which were conveyed to General Motors. In December 1922, the U.S. Surgeon
General, H.S. Cumming, wrote to Pierre DuPont: ‘(i)nasmuch as it is understood that when
employed in gasoline engines, this substance will add a finely divided and no diffusible form of lead
to exhaust gases, and furthermore, since lead poisoning in human beings is of the cumulative type
resulting frequently from the daily intake of minute quantities, it seems pertinent to inquire whether
there might not be a decided health hazard associated with the extensive use of lead tetraethyl in
engines’ (Kitma, 2000).
At that time, early 1923, Thomas Midgley was amongst the first victim of leaded fuel: ‘(a)fter
about a year's work in organic lead,’ he wrote, ‘I find that my lungs have been affected and that it
is necessary to drop all work and get a large supply of fresh air’ (Kitma, 2000). Before leaving to
131
For instance, Midgley demonstrated the non-toxicity and the non-inflammability of Freon to the American
Chemical Society by inhalating its vapour and exhaling it over a lit candle (Kettering, 1947).
221
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Miami, where he hoped he could quickly recover 133, Midgley wrote a reply to Cumming's
letter. Although the question ‘had been given very serious consideration,’ he wrote, ‘(...) no
actual experimental data has been taken.’ Midgley nevertheless was trying to be reassuring:
‘the average street will probably be so free from lead that it will be impossible to detect it or its
absorption’ (McGrayne, 2001).
Following the death of workers at the TEL plant in New Jersey, the U.S. Bureau of Mines
was contacted by General Motors in September 1923 to conduct a study paid by the
company (McGrayne, 2001). The Bureau was requested by contract not to render public
progress reports and press releases. Later, it was stipulated that only the brand name ‘Ethyl’
could be used in the work done by the Bureau as the term ‘lead’ could frighten the public 134.
Moreover, it was requested that ‘all manuscripts, before publication, w(ould) be submitted to the
Company for comment and criticism’ (Kitma, 2000).
Following the death of two workers that he knew personally 135 at the TEL plant in Dayton
(McGrayne, 2001), Thomas Midgley became upset and considered giving up the whole
Tetraethyl Lead programme (Kitma, 2000), but Kettering was opposed to it.
General Motors established a medical committee which, supposedly, expressed a cautionary
report 136. Irénée DuPont, wrote to Sloan on 29 August, 1924, and told him not to worry: ‘I
have read the doctors' report and am not disturbed by the severity of the findings.’ He considered
Nitro-glycerine much more hazardous to make than TEL and erosion from lead paint
potentially more dangerous than lead dust from exhausts (Kitma, 2000).
In 1924, Kehoes, a young pathologist, was recruited by Kettering. After a few months of
work, he considered the rate of 18% poisoning amongst the Dayton factory staff to be a sign
133
Midgley believed that four to five weeks of golf in Florida would bring him a ‘new covering’ for his lungs
and would raise his temperature back to normal. Unfortunately, it did not work as well as expected (McGrayne,
2001).
134
Kettering had already suggested using the term ‘Ethyl’ as a brand name and to ban any reference to the word
‘lead’ in advertising.
135
60 other workers also became ill. No reports were published in the press (McGrayne, 2001).
136
The report, like other original documents, is not available in the company archives (Kitma, 2000).
222
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

of ‘almost complete disappearance’. He also claimed that there was no risk from car exhausts
using Ethyl. Kehoes protected TEL over the next 40 years 137 (McGrayne, 2001).
In October 1924, workers from a TEL plant operated by Standard Oil started to go insane
and to suffer from hallucinations. Five of them died and 80% of the staff became ill. The
press wrote stories about the ’loony gas’ which created puzzlement and raised fear 138.
Kettering was upset that Standard Oil could not prevent the bad publicity (McGrayne,
2001). Few days after, Midgley was asked by a journalist if it was dangerous to spill TEL on
one’s hands. Midgley knew that it was, however, he poured TEL on his hand and washed
them in front of him. He claimed: ‘I am not taking any chances whatever (…). Nor would I take
any chance doing that every day‘ (McGrayne, 2001). By doing this, he sent the message that a
small amount of TEL on one’s hand was harmless while he was already affected by the
chemical. He also declared to a newspaper: ‘(t)he essential thing necessary to safely handle TEL
was careful discipline of our men (…). The minute a man shows signs of exhilaration, he is laid off.
If he spills the stuff on himself, he is fired. Because he does not want to lose his job, he does not
spill it’ (McGrayne, 2001).
In November 1924, The U.S. Bureau of Mines announced that TEL was not dangerous the
day after, five workers died. The report was challenged by experts. General Motors and
DuPont requested that the Public Health Service hold public hearings on TEL. On 4 May,
1925, Ethyl withdrew its product from the market. On 20 May 1925, 87 participants
convened for the public hearings. Frank Howard from Standard's Oil, and soon to be an
Ethyl director, defended eloquently Ethyl that was presented as a ‘Gift of God’ 139. It was
137
Years later, Kehoe told the Congress that he and his team ‘had been looking for 30 years for evidence of bad
effects from leaded gasoline in the general population and had found none.’ (Kitma, 2000) In fact, Kehoe used
as control samples patients already contaminated by lead. Some experts challenged his methodology right from
1925 (Kitma, 2000).
138
Standard Oil challenged the appellation and commented about their liabilities: ‘the rejection of many men as
physically unfit to engage in the work of the Bayway plant, daily physical examinations, constant admonitions
as to wearing rubber gloves and using gas masks and not wearing away from the plant clothing worn during
work hours should have been sufficient indication to every man in the plant that he was engaged 'in a man's
undertaking’ (Kitma, 2000).
139
‘Our problem is not that simple. We cannot quite act on a remote probability. We are engaged in the General
Motors Corporation in the manufacture of automobiles, and in the Standard Oil Company in the manufacture
and refining of oil. On these things our present industrial civilization is supposed to depend. I might refer to the
comment made at the end of the war--that the Allies floated to victory on a sea of oil--which is probably true....
Now as a result of some 10 years' [sic] research on the part of The General Motors Corporation and 5
223
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

decided that a committee of experts was going to be appointed and asked to report back by
1 January 1926. Ethyl was to be withdrawn until conclusions could be reached. In the end,
the committee noticed ‘a greater storage of lead in the bodies of those exposed to Ethyl gasoline’
(Kitma, 2000) and lead in the dust of garages dispensing Ethyl. The committee concluded:
‘(i)t remains possible that if the use of leaded gasoline becomes widespread, conditions may arise
very different from those studied by us which would render its use more of a hazard than would
appear to be the case from this investigation. Longer experience may show that even such slight
storage of lead...may lead eventually in susceptible individuals to recognisable or to chronic
degenerative diseases of a less obvious character (...). In view of such possibilities the committee
feels that the investigation begun under their direction must not be allowed to lapse (...). The vast
increase in the number of automobiles throughout the country makes the study of all such questions
a matter of real importance from the standpoint of public health, and the committee urges strongly
that a suitable appropriation be requested from Congress for the continuance of these investigations
under the supervision of the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service’ (Kitma, 2000).
Newspapers concluded that it meant that there was no risk. The New York Times,
announced: ‘Report: No Danger in Ethyl Gasoline’. Follow up studies were planned but never
conducted. In May 1926, customers could read on signs in gas stations: ‘Ethyl is back.’ Lead
was outlawed as an automotive gasoline additive in the American 1986 and the use of
catalytic converters was encouraged in cars.
Over the years, Midgley, the optimistic and proud inventor, the talented salesman, had been
enrolled by Kettering, his boss, and General Motors, his employer, to defend his invention.
In this case, Midgley was no more a lonely individual who had to enrol supporters and
promote his invention. He was one amongst a group of managers, lawyers, public relation
specialists, determined to defend the interests of the company. The company built and
years' research by the Standard Oil Co., or a little bit more, we have this apparent gift of God--of 3 cubic
centimetres of tetraethylethyl lead--which will permit that gallon of gasoline...to go perhaps 50 percent further...
What is our duty under the circumstances? Should we throw this thing aside? Should we say, 'No, we will
not use it,' in spite of the efforts of the government and the General Motors Corporation and the Standard Oil
Co. towards developing this very thing, which is a certain means of saving petroleum? Because some animals
die and some do not die in some experiments, shall we give this thing up entirely?
Frankly, it is a problem that we do not know how to meet. We cannot justify ourselves in our consciences if
we abandon the thing. I think it would be an unheard of blunder if we should abandon a thing of this kind
merely because of our fears. Possibilities cannot be allowed to influence us to such an extent as that in this
matter’ (Kitma, 2000).
224
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

benefited from a significant asymmetry of information. And when uncertainty prevails and
obscures reality, such asymmetry of information can prove to be deadly. As illustrated here,
information asymmetries can be constructed and maintained using the ability of agents to
persuade others and their potential impact should not be under-estimated.
Section II. William Coolidge
Midgley discovered, throughout his work, the value of conducting scientific investigations in
order to understand the principles that govern specific technical phenomena and, possibly,
to bring some new ones to life. However, the first firm that established, in America, an
industrial laboratory that dealt with science was General Electric. The present part analyses
the work of William Coolidge (1873-1975) at the General Electric research laboratory.
Coolidge led the development of the tungsten incandescent lamp 140 and X-ray tubes141.
More than 80 patents bearing his name were secured by General Electric, mainly on those
two technologies.
Coolidge was raised on a farm and studied, thanks to a State scholarship, at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.). He pursued his studies in Leipzig, as many
other scientists of his generation who had to go to Germany to develop their scientific
skills. When he returned from Germany, in 1899, he started to teach at M.I.T. He joined
General Electric in 1905, five years after the research laboratory was founded. He was
attracted by a salary twice as much as the one he got from the university, and also by the
promise of being able to pursue scientific work of his own choice. At that time, the first
director of the General Electric research laboratory, Willis Whitney, was still working half
of his time at M.I.T. and had an office at the university adjacent to the one of Coolidge.
General Electric had benefited from the inventions of Thomas A. Edison, Elihu Thomson,
Charles Steinmetz and others over the years. Nevertheless, the company tended to wait for
140
The patent secured by the research laboratory on tungsten filament allowed General Electric to establish a
unique market position in the incandescent lamp business by means of licensing and patent-pooling
arrangements.
141
X-ray tubes are a typical contribution of the General Electric research laboratory to the diversification of the
business of the mother company.
225
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

external parties to spearhead new technical developments. Management at General Electric
believed that inventors were not suited for corporate life and that through the acquisition of
patents or through mergers, specific sectors could be controlled. However, with the
expiration of some key patents and the threat of new technological developments, Edwin
Rice, the Vice-president of engineering and manufacturing at General Electric 142, agreed to
establish a research laboratory in 1900 upon the suggestion of the company’s electrical
engineer, Charles Steinmetz. The main intent was to respond to the competitive pressures.
Later the research director Whitney declared: ‘(O)ur research laboratory was a development of
the idea that large industrial organi(s)ations have both an opportunity and a responsibility for their
own life insurance. New discovery can provide it’ (Reich, 1985).
Upon joining the research laboratory, Coolidge started to work on the tungsten filament on
which he was going to work during the next eight years. At that time, the carbon filament
lamp was failing to respond to the needs of the early 20th century. It was portrayed as ‘too
small, too red, too hot’ (Miller, 1963). In Europe, scientists in universities and firms were
experimenting with other materials: osmium, tantalium and tungsten. The work on the
tungsten filament led by Coolidge required developing an in depth understanding of ‘what
took place within and between the crystals of the extremely hard, brittle metal’ (Reich, 1985). The
intent of Coolidge was practical but, to progress, he had to develop a basic scientific
understanding of the material. He was a skilled experimenter and was able to spot critical
problems. The main discoveries were made in 1909, but many months were still needed to
bring a product to market. Incandescent lamps with ductile tungsten filament were launched
on the American market in 1911. The market share of General Electric in the lamp business
went from 25% in 1911 to 71% by 1914. According to Reich in 1985: ‘(u)p until the second
World War, incandescent lamps, brought the company one-third to two-thirds of its annual profit,
although they represented only one-sixth of its sales’. Ductile tungsten 143enabled improvement in
lamp efficacy and remained a leading technology throughout the entire 20th century.
142
General Electric was the result of a merger in 1892 between Edison General Electric and the Thomson-
Houston Company. It was managed centrally from Schenectady (NY) in America.
143
Tungsten is a metal with a high melting point, a high tensile strength and a low coefficient of extension.
Together with its wide avalability, this made it an important metal in the history of technology since the
beginning of the 20th century (Liebhafsky 1974).
226
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Coolidge was not the only first class scientist at General Electric. Langmuir, for instance,
was a Nobel Prize winner responsible for some breakthroughs in radio and vacuum tubes. In
1915, 250 people were working for the research laboratory.
Coolidge continued to work on tungsten and looked for new applications. He used it, for
instance, to develop electrical contact points which were widely adopted in the nascent
automobile industry. He also looked at the possibility of replacing platinum in X-ray tubes, a
technology that had caught his interest when he was at M.I.T. This led him to develop an X-
ray portable unit for the army on the eve of the First World War Wartime also led him to
work on underwater sound detection systems, which opened a new commercial field for
General Electric. X-ray tubes occupied Coolidge over the years, he increased their voltage
from 200,000 volts, in 1921, to 900,000 volts, in 1930. Such work had important applications
in the medical field and, also, in the industry for non destructive tests.
Coolidge became an informal group leader in the laboratory after the First World War He
became associate director of the laboratory in 1928 and replaced Whitney at the head of
the laboratory in 1932. It was the time of the business depression, a difficult period for the
research laboratory. However, during the late 30’s, the business situation had significantly
improved. He headed more than 300 people in the laboratory. He also sat on President
Roosevelt’s Advisory Committee on Uranium.
Coolidge had passed retirement age when the Second World War broke out. He remained
in position until 1944. During the war, tungsten was part of more than 15,000 devices used
by the army (Miller, 1963). General Electric research laboratory became extensively
involved in radar work during that period. Coolidge remained a prominent scientific figure
and, later, advised Japan, at the request of the American government, on science and
technology policy issues.
On the one hand, Coolidge contributed to establish the tradition of performing scientific
research in private companies, and, on the other hand, he contributed to development of
the enduring wealth of General Electric.
227
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

First, we will see how competitive pressure forced General Electric to be attentive to
technological developments. The development of ductile tungsten for incandescent lamps
could not have been successful without a continuous access to information and skills outside
of the firm. It was a formidable case of ‘open innovation’ which required Coolidge and his
colleagues to remain attentive to what was available outside of the firm (A/ Attentiveness:
open innovation at the start of the 20th century).
Then, we will look at the different strategies employed by Coolidge as part of the inventive
activities that allowed him to develop both practical products and new knowledge.
Serendipity and luck, the pursuit of multiple routes in parallel, and the systematic analysis of
all design parameters will appear as conscious strategies used by Coolidge and his
colleagues. At the same time, General Electric was able to progress on its work on the
incandescent lamp and Coolidge was capable of developing a systematic investigation of the
design parameters that could influence an invention (B/ Experimentation: both
serendipity and systematism).
Coolidge was capable of explaining his work and its outcome with great clarity. However,
the last section of this chapter will investigate how General Electric research laboratory
benefited from an attractive image in the press. The laboratory was indeed referred to as
the ‘House of magic’, a useful nickname to persuade others of the value of your work (C/
Persuasion: the House of magic).
228
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A/ Attentiveness: open innovation at the start of the 20th century
According to Liebhafsky (1974), ‘(f)rom the first, the research laboratory recogni(s)ed the
advantage of extensive contacts at home and abroad; for this liberal policy, the critical incandescent-
lamp situation before the invention of ductile tungsten was partly responsible.’ In other words,
General Electric research laboratory had adopted an ‘open innovation 144’ culture, thanks to
the competitive pressure the company was facing at the start of the century. In this section,
we will look at how competitive pressures led General Electric to become attentive to
tungsten, and how its open innovation approach helped Coolidge to achieve his success 145.
Walther Nernst, a professor from Gottingen University, in Germany, invented and patented
a new kind of lamp that required no vacuum to operate and had a longer life than the best
carbon-filament lamps. He sold his patent to AEG, in Germany, and to Westinghouse, in
America, in 1894. Westinghouse also supported Peter Cooper Hewitt, a talented inventor
working on mercury lamps. It brought to the attention of the management of General
Electric that the company could be deprived of its technical edge and unable to access the
latest developments, which convinced Steinmetz, the company’s chief consulting engineer, to
propose the establishment of a research laboratory at General Electric. The management
accepted the idea at the turn of the century (Reich, 1985).
Over eight years, developments conducted by potential competitors in the field of
incandescent lamps showed General Electric that tungsten was the most promising direction
for the future. In 1898, Dr Welsbach applied for the first patent in America for a metal
filament lamp using osmium. It was fragile and the limited supply of osmium impeded further
developments. In 1902, it was a tantalum filament that had been patented by a Russian
chemist working for a German firm, Von Bolton. However, it had a sort lifecycle when used
with alternative current. One of Coolidge’s first piece of work was to study this process, for
which General Electric had secured a licence. Then, in 1904, Just and Hanaman, from a
144
‘Open innovation’ is a concept that has attracted much interest over the past years. According to Chesbrough
(2006), managers accept more and more ‘that useful knowledge is widely distributed, and that even the most
capable R&D organi(s)ations must identify, connect to, and leverage external knowledge sources as a core
process in innovation’.
145
Coolidge did not just benefit from the ‘open innovation’ culture of General Electric research laboratory. In
fact, he played a role in shaping such a culture in this organisation.
229
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

technical high school in Vienna, applied for a patent in France and in Great Britain for a
tungsten filament. The same year, the Russian chemist Von Bolton also applied for a patent
on a tungsten filament lamp. In 1905, a German named Kuzel applied for an American patent
on a different process for the production of tungsten filament (Miller, 1963).
As a result, Coolidge started to investigate tungsten. It was competition that had showed
General Electric the direction. Sent by Rice, who headed engineering activities, the research
director, Whitney, accompanied by Howell, a scientist, toured Europe. They ended up
recommending the purchase of the rights of the German process, which was carried out by
the company. Eventually, it proved to be an expensive dead end. Such a tour, nevertheless,
allowed them to understand that they were lagging behind Europeans. Later, General
Electric European agents informed their mother company in America of the developments
taking place in Europe (Reich, 1985).
In 1908 and 1909, it was Coolidge who travelled to Europe. The first trip was apparently
not very profitable, according to Miller (1963). However, during the second one, Coolidge
took a sample of the tungsten filament he had developed to show it to Dr. Blau, who
headed AEG laboratory. Dr. Blau was very surprised by the work of Coolidge 146. It indicates
that Coolidge was now ahead of the European lamp industry (Miller, 1963). This visit also
pointed Coolidge in the direction of metal working techniques, as opposed to chemical
treatment, especially after the visit to AEG (Reich, 1985).
Throughout the development of ductile tungsten, Coolidge relied on people from outside
the laboratory and took a number of trips to search for relevant ideas. Following the lead of
metal working, he invited a blacksmith from the works to help him, he also visited wire and
needle making factories. It was at the Eddy Machine Company, in Rhode Island, and at the
Excelsior Needle Company, in Connecticut, that he discovered a technique called
swaging 147. He bought a swaging machine immediately (Wise, 1985).
Looking back on the development of ductile tungsten filament, Coolidge once declared:
‘(t)he research and development work leading finally to the commercial production of ductile
146
This anecdote is mentioned by Miller (1963), but is not mentioned by more recent pieces of research, such as
Reich (1985) and Wise (1985).
147
Swaging consists of hitting a piece of metal with repeated rapid blows to reduce its thickness.
230
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

tungsten for various purpose was made possible through the close cooperation of many General
Electric scientists and engineers—So many in fact that it would be impossible for me to name them
all and properly assign credit. There was also help from others outside the Company. As an example
of this, take the case of the diamond dies for the filament squirting and tungsten wire drawing. It
early became clear that we must, ourselves learn to make diamond dies, shaped and mounted
specifically for our tungsten work. Through the Waltham Watch Company, we learned of an expert
lapidary, who came to us and stayed a month, teaching us something of the lapidary art. As another
example, in this same field, we learned from Mr. C. A. Cowles, of the Ansonia Brass and Copper
Company, about their use of diamond dies in copper wire drawing. We were at the time, eager to
know what was the largest size of diamond die that we could afford to use in drawing tungsten, as
this would determine the smallest size to which we must swage or roll‘ (Miller, 1963) 148. In his
recollection of what happened, Coolidge appears more eager to recognise outside
contributions than the one of his colleagues. In fact, more than 40 people within the
laboratory contributed to the development of ductile tungsten filament. However, Fink, one
of the close collaborators of Coolidge, later asserted that he was the real inventor of ductile
tungsten filament (Wise, 1985).
It is also important to note that Coolidge worked very closely with the engineers of the
lamp factories before transferring to them the production activities, which also allowed a
significant reduction in cost over the years (Reich, 1985).
The same pattern of open innovation applied to later applications of tungsten. For instance,
Coolidge took a sample of tungsten electrical contact to Charles Kettering, inventor in the
automotive field and Charles Midgley’s director. Kettering immediately tested the sample
and showed Coolidge that oil was less of a problem for tungsten contacts than for platinum
ones. Later Kettering came to General Electric research laboratory to help with an engine
for X-ray equipment for the army (Miller, 1963).
Coolidge, throughout his career, made numerous visits throughout America and abroad. He
also received many visitors. ‘In the long run,’ he claimed, ‘we, in the laboratory have benefited as
much from our visitors as they have by what they saw and learned from us’ (Miller, 1963).
231
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

‘Open innovation’ is nowadays attracting interest from many established firms. However, one
hundred years before, the early years of General Electric research laboratory, and more
specifically the development of ductile tungsten and its application to incandescent lamps,
shows that ‘open innovation’ is not something new. Competitive pressure can provoke
uncertainty for the sustainability of a firm. General Electric reacted to this threat by
adopting an ‘open innovation’ approach. There was no time to invent everything in-house; all
potentially useful sources of knowledge had to be mobilised.
B/ Experimentation: serendipity and systematism
Away from the laboratory, science tends to appear as an exercise where theory drives
practical realisations. But Wise (1985), the biographer of Willis Whitney, unveils a different
reality: ‘(a)n industrial researcher can rarely use a scientific theory to make precise quantitative
predictions that will permit the design of a new device or process from first principles. Instead, the
theory usually provides hints or narrows the field of search by ruling out some possibilities. Theory
provides the inventor with helpful analogy, model, or viewpoint, not with a recipe’. At the General
Electric research laboratory, both Coolidge and Langmuir were skilled experimenters who
sometimes took theoretical paths in order to come back to practical issues. The first would
always come back to practical applications and tended to publish articles in technical
magazines. The latter enjoyed crafting theories and also published in scientific journals.
The following section argues that, for the General Electric research laboratory, serendipity
was more than just a providential gift. It was regarded as a fruitful possibility to which
everyone had to pay attention. After this, on many occasions, pursuing inventive activities
required following alternative routes simultaneously and systematically testing multiple
combinations of design parameters.
The development of incandescent lamps, for example, benefited from luck. Liebhafsky
provided an account of what was called the ‘Battersea incident’: ‘let me recapitulate as best as I
can: (1) the research laboratory buys fire-clay crucibles made at Battersea, among others. (2)
During the heating of tungsten oxide, these Battersea crucibles transfer something that inhibits grain
growth in finished tungsten when no other crucible had previously done so. That the transfer can be
effective is itself a miracle, for the finished tungsten is a long way down the road from tungsten
oxide. (3) The oxide of thorium is added to tungsten powder as a replacement for this something.
232
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(4) Thorium just happens to be the best of all elements for increasing the usefulness of tungsten as
an electron emitter. (5) By proper heat treatment, the thoria in the lamp filament can be made to
yield the persistent monolayer of thorium needed to achieve increased emission. Could anyone have
predicted this chain of events? Remember the chain could have been broken at any link. I think Dr
Coolidge would point out politely but firmly, that significant research results are not yet predictable
by computer or otherwise, and that experiments have not yet had their day!’
It was not the first time the development of incandescent lamps at General Electric research
laboratory had benefited from a little push from providence. Whitney, a few years before,
had bumped into a heat treatment process that had changed the nature of the carbon
filament and offered means to improve its efficiency as he was trying to prevent the
blackening of the lamp by getting rid of impurities under high temperatures.
Luck was more than just luck at General Electric, it was something that should be favoured.
Reich (1985) described it as a sort of ideology: ‘(o)f course, theory and experiment went hand in
hand, but Whitney very strongly suggested that the latter precede any attempt at detailed
theoretical analysis. He believed that chance prepared the prepared mind, and he wanted to
maximize the chances while keeping the minds open to new interpretations. Unanticipated
discovery and understanding of new phenomena, often coming from one or more researchers
piecing together seemingly unrelated results was called ‘serendipity’. By the 1920’s, it had become
part of the laboratory ideology’. The laboratory was interested in scientific knowledge but it
did not mean that serendipity would not be welcome in the process. Langmuir, the future
Nobel Prize winner and colleague of Coolidge, sometimes imposed unusual conditions to his
experimental equipment to simply see how it would react.
Another harsh reality for the scientists working at General Electric was that, unsurprisingly,
not all attempts to progress brought success. As a consequence, more than one route was
often explored in parallel to increase the chance of success of the whole team. For instance,
at the start of the work on metal filament, Whitney assigned to a different researcher each
of the promising elements position around tantalum on the periodic table of elements:
molybdenum, uranium, thorium and tungsten. Rapidly, tantalum and tungsten remained in
competition and, later, tungsten appeared as the only promising route. For tungsten, to
remove brittleness, once again, multiple routes were explored: squirted filaments, impurity
elimination and a general study of the cause of brittleness which led to the recruitment of
233
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Langmuir (Wise, 1985). Later again, Whitney himself pursued the improvement of the
process purchased in Germany while Coolidge was attacking his own line of work after he
observed that tungsten could absorb cadmium or bismuth to form a flexible amalgam.
Collaboration but also competition was encouraged in the laboratory.
In fact, the ‘multiple routes’ approach became a common one in the laboratory. Whitney
illustrated this in 1928 with a metaphor: ‘(w)e may grow a peach and sell it with the grooper
feathers on it, but sometimes we grow a green lemon that we ’sour’ fully and quietly digest (…). I
can get exact figures to match my estimates, but they are entirely misleading unless they include ten
lemons to each peach’ (Wise, 1985).
Developing ductile tungsten proved to be a long and difficult quest. Many parameters could
influence the results of the work of Coolidge and his colleagues. Different metal working
operations (hot hammering, rolling, swaging, etc.) could be used with different operational
process. Temperatures could be varied and subtle changes could bring opposite outcomes.
Consistent production required controlled parameters. Many painstaking experiments and a
large team of scientists were required to achieve success. Even in 1909, after the hot
swaging process was proven satisfactory and patentable, roadblocks remained. More
specifically, crystals were preventing Coolidge from making long filaments. He found some
hope and an idea thanks to an analogy: ice cream in which adding glycerine prevented grain
growth. Coolidge needed to find his own glycerine (Wise, 1985), it took him another year
before he selected thoria.
Coolidge described his ductile tungsten as follow: ‘(i)magine then a man wishing to open a
door locked with a combination lock and bolted on the inside. Assume that he does not
know a single number of the combination and has not a chance to open the door until he
finds the whole combination and not a chance to do so even then unless the bolt is open on
the inside. Also bear in mind that he cannot tell whether a single number of the combination
is right until he knows the combination complete. When we started to make tungsten
ductile, our situation was like that’ (Miller, 1963) 149.
234
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Another piece of inventive activities provides a telling story on the way Coolidge
approached some of his experiments. In 1917, he worked on an underwater sound
detection device. He created a stethoscope where all design parameters could be modified
readily. With this clever design, he could tune it to optimise its sensitivity.
Looking at the relations between basic research and Experimentation in the case of
Coolidge, it is apparent that theory and existing knowledge helped him throughout his work
on ductile tungsten filament and on other inventive activities in which he was engaged.
However, the pursuit of basic research activities must be distinguished from the direct use
of theory. Basic research can be a means to produce scientific knowledge that can guide
subsequent inventive activities. It does not, in any way, mean that uncertainty has
disappeared and that serendipity, trial and error, analogies and systematic Experimentations
are of no use when science comes into play. On the contrary, the front lines of sciences are,
by definition, very uncertain territories where all those tactics and strategies are useful to
experiment and progress. General Electric research laboratory, at least during the period
studied here, is a proof of this.
C/ Persuasion: ‘The House of magic’
Coolidge, Whitney and Langmuir developed and nourished a reputation for the General
Electric research laboratory at a time when science started to appear as an object of
fascination for people. Its reputation was diverging from reality, emphasising basic research
when, within the walls of the laboratory, practical applications remained a cornerstone of
the research laboratory policy. This section will move beyond the sole focus on Coolidge
and will also mention Whitney, who created and headed the laboratory before Coolidge
took over.
Coolidge excelled at making his explanations understandable by others. His work also spoke
for itself as, thanks to the tungsten bulb, General Electric went from being under severe
competitive pressure, to reigning again in the lamp industry. In the 1910’s, the value of the
research laboratory for General Electric was unquestionable.
235
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The General Electric incandescent lamps were named Mazda 150. The advertising campaign in
1915 made reference to the research laboratory and the people that had developed them:
‘(t)he mark of Mazda on the bulb indicates that the services of the extensive research laboratory of
the General Electric Company of Schenectady have been available to the maker of that lamp. Great
corps of physicists, chemists, metallurgists and other scientists, besides electrical engineers and
lighting experts, test, select, compare and systematize all available knowledge which may assist in
improving incandescent lamps’ (Reich, 1985). Science was a sales argument.
Before the First World War, Whitney joined the Naval Consulting Board headed by Edison.
According to Wise (1985), his actions were more dedicated to promoting science through
the establishment of governmental institutions to support basic research and the education
of scientists in universities than practical war efforts. Nevertheless, with the start of the war,
General Electric research laboratory worked on submarine detection, X-ray tubes for the
military, vacuum tubes for radio and other projects. All of those were profitable for the
company (Reich, 1985). The war brought financial support from the government for
practical research activities and it provided a springboard to reinforce the reputation of the
laboratory.
Science was now more and more regarded as a cure to many problems. Physics and
electricity were in fashion. It was now science that was capturing the imagination of
journalists and the country at large. After the war, Whitney promoted the use of science by
companies and lobbied the government to ensure it would continue to support such ideas.
At the same time, Coolidge and Langmuir received honours and medals culminating with
Langmuir’s Nobel Prize in 1932. Such recognition is both a proof and a catalyst for
reputation. Magazines reported on the work of scientists in General Electric emphasising
what could be regarded as surprising, or even sensational. During the 1920’s, Floyd
Gibbons, a newsman and radio broadcaster, called the General Electric research laboratory
‘The House of magic’. A journalist wrote in 1931: ‘(T)here is something slightly mad at the
research laboratory at Schenectady,’ and he added, ‘(a)t one end of the first floor corridor, William
David Coolidge is experimenting to see what will happen when cathode rays animated by 900,000
volts are hurled against a diamond lent by Tiffany’s. He may be determining their effect on spores
150
Reference to the name of the ancient Persian God of light.
236
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

of deadly bacteria, or, perhaps on a group of bewildered cockroaches about to perish in the interest
of science’ (Miller, 1963).
Coolidge had organised, in the 1920’s, a replica of famous scientific experiments 151 to
educate the employees of the company. External visitors showed interest and experiments
that had been first conducted at the General Electric research laboratory were added to the
collection. Portable apparatus needed for these experiments were constructed, in order to
make demonstrations and scientific lectures available outside the company.
In 1933, an exhibition in Chicago named ‘A Century of Progress’ attracted many visitors 152; it
made the public interest for science visible. The pavillon of General Electric was named ‘The
House of magic’, after the article of the journalist mentioned previously. It provoked agitation
amongst the scientists of the laboratory but the public loved it so much that the
demonstration organised by General Electric was later taken to Philadelphia and, then, to
New York. It led to the creation, in General Electric, of a special unit in charge of organising
‘House of magic’ road shows and tours, within and sometimes beyond America. The
laboratory was now raising the value of the company in the eyes of the investors.
Now that he had been research director since 1932, Coolidge spent a significant amount of
his time showing people around the laboratory, at least the ones that were considered
important. Every year, 15,000 thousand people visited the place (Miller, 1963). A weekly
programme called ‘The science forum’ was also broadcast every week over the General
Electric radio station, W.G.I.
Research served to advertise the company and the company, therefore, supported research.
Whitney, Coolidge and Langmuir had nourished a reputation for the research laboratory
that went well beyond the walls of General Electric. They had benefited from the
conjecture: economic development, the war as well as the public interest for science and
151
For example, Millikan’s experiment used to measure the electric charge of an electron, the experiment that
made alpha and beta rays visible using a fog-chamber, amongst others (Miller, 1963).
152
It was estimated that one million and a half people visited the exhibition (Miller, 1963).
237
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

they had contributed to make the laboratory a place recognised for its ability to ‘create
magic’.
Whitney had promoted science and encouraged governmental support since the end of the
First World War. A disconnect between his discourse and his actions started to develop.
The ways of doing research he was promoting publicly were quite far away from the
practices he encouraged at the General Electric research laboratory. On the one hand, he
was advocating that, as long as you invest in science, its seeds would turn by themselves into
practical applications; on the other hand, in the research laboratory, together with Langmuir
and Coolidge, he was still putting much emphasis on practical applications and on building
lasting and fruitful collaboration with the rest of General Electric and the outside world.
Whitney declared ‘(m)an usually does not know what he wants until he has it (…). He has
seldom realised the want first and then gone directly to produce the thing wanted’ and he pursued
‘encouraged curiosity is the safest criterion of an improving civili(s)ation (…) the principle of random
research, call it the blind principle if you will is evident everywhere’ (Wise, 1985).
Research laboratories were depicted as a place where scientists could freely develop their
ideas in isolation from the realities of the world, when, in fact, the success of General
Electric research laboratories had been and continued to be ensured by the opposite
approach. In 1937, Coolidge estimated that only twenty percent of what was done within
the laboratory could be called ‘fundamental research’ (Liebhafsky, 1974). He described the
laboratory as a ‘service department’ that existed to advise and serve the other departments of
the company. The emphasis on the ‘House of magic’ to promote the company and Whitney’s
personal attention on the promotion of science in the public arena had led to a distorted
picture of reality in order to support his beliefs. In the early 1930’s, he wrote in preparation
for a speech ‘I don’t believe in magic’.
Whitney, Coolidge and their colleagues created an image of basic research undertaken by
private companies that helped to persuade the management of other firms to invest in
science, and more specifically ‘Pure Science’ 153. This misleading emphasis on basic research
153
See infra.
238
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

announced the linear model promoted by Vannevar Bush 154 after the Second World War
although this image was very different from the reality, it helped to sell. General Electric
used the aura of science to signal the value of the goods it was selling on the market and to
persuade people to buy them. The company also encouraged an association between magic
and science that embarrassed the scientists: science and magic are rarely seen as equal for
them. We saw how Edison fashioned himself and enjoyed being presented as the ‘Wizard of
Menlo Park’ 155. In this case, it was the laboratory as a whole that was turned into a fashion
icon: the ‘House of magic’.
To persuade others, inventors can use discourses they might not like nor agree with in the
end. Such discourses can also confuse decision-makers who might want to emulate their
success. Between the discourse and the reality, gaps can be quite significant.
154
See infra.
155
See supra, part 2.
239
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section III- Wallace Carothers
If General Electric was the first company to open an industrial laboratory in America,
DuPont was the first to launch a ‘Pure Science’ programme within the chemical sector. The
present chapter studies the work of Wallace Carothers (1896-1937) at DuPont. Carothers
spearheaded the development of synthetic polymers 156 and, more, specifically led the team
that invented neoprene and nylon.
In 1915, Wallace Carothers started to study chemistry 157 with great interest at Tarkio
College, Missouri. He joined the University of Illinois in 1920 to gain his Master of Arts. He
became an instructor in analytical and physical chemistry at the University of South Dakota
in 1921. At the same time, he started to work on some research problems (Adams, 1939).
After one year, he came back to the University of Illinois to complete his PhD. He received
it in 1924 for his work in the field of organic chemistry. He became an instructor at Harvard
in 1926. Eventually, DuPont, offered to recruit him as part of its ‘Pure Science’ effort, which
was aimed at discovering scientific knowledge regardless of immediate commercial value.
Carothers hesitated but finally agreed to do so, and moved in a new laboratory in February
1928 at the DuPont research centre on the outskirts of Wilmington, Delaware. He oversaw
research activities in organic chemistry; a team of chemists was recruited and placed under
his supervision.
At DuPont, Carothers pioneered the development of synthetic polymers: first, polyester
and, then, polyamide. He believed that polymers were long molecules held together by
covalent bonds at a time, when most chemists still doubted the existence of
156
Polymers are giant molecules formed by uniting simple molecules or monomers by covalent bonds. The
word comes from Greek and it means ‘many parts’. Polymers have high molecular weights, which gives them
useful physical characteristics, such as high viscosity, elasticity, and strength. Polymers are found everywhere.
They are part of man himself: proteins and nucleic acid are polymers. Natural fibres, such as wool and cotton,
are polymers. And of course many synthetics, such as plastics, nylon, and man-made rubber, are polymers (see
http://acswebcontent.acs.org/landmarks/landmarks/polymer/pol_2.html.) During the early years of the 20th
century, the production of synthetic plastic was already under way. Cellulose and its derivatives started to be
used in diverse applications. However, mastering the science of polymer was necessary to go further.
157
During the five years he spent there, he started to teach chemistry on a part time basis following the request
of his professor A. Pardee who had gained his PhD from John Hopkins University. Before 1915, employment
opportunities in chemistry were very limited. Many chemical products were imported from Germany at that
time. In the 1920’s, American universities initiated significant efforts in chemistry, the generation of Carothers
was the first one who did not have to go to Germany to get a PhD (McGrayne, 2001).
240
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

macromolecules. He attributed the properties of what is named now as polymer to the
tendency of molecules to form colloids, or clusters, when put in solution. He initiated a
programme to demonstrate the existence of polymer by synthesising them. He continuously
tried to build long chains of molecules with higher and higher molecular weight.
While working on the synthesis of polymer, he invented neoprene, a synthetic rubber which
was later sold by DuPont for applications such as shoes, telephone insulations and gasoline
hoses amongst other applications. He also led the discovery of nylon, a synthetic textile
fibre which became extensively used during the Second World War for parachutes, tents
and other applications. After the war, it replaced silk. Carothers had opened a very
significant new avenue for the industry, the possibility to create specialised materials with
properties on demand.
In autumn 1938, DuPont presented the nylon to the public, the first man-made organic
textile fibre. Carothers was not present, he had committed suicide a year and a half before,
at the age of 41, following a series of severe periods of depression.
Carothers remains as the inventor or co-inventor of 69 U.S patents filed by DuPont. He
published extensively throughout his career and was admired by his peers. His work opened
the door for the study of protein and the discovery of DNA in molecular biology
(McGrayne, 2001).
The history of DuPont prior to the recruitment of Carothers is another important element
of context for the present chapter. DuPont had been established in the America by
Eulethère Irénée DuPont to manufacture gunpowder. At the start of the 20th century, E. I.
DuPont, led by Pierre Samuel DuPont, initiated a series of business acquisitions and sales
that led the company to establish a near monopoly in the gunpowder business. The First
World War brought an immense fortune to the DuPont family who then purchased the
General Motors Company 158. The DuPont Corporation pursued a diversification strategy
and started to establish itself in a series of chemical markets, such as dyestuffs, textile fibres,
158
See supra.
241
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

paint, varnish, cellophane films, ammonia and photographic films. In most cases, it was done
through the acquisition of technology outside of the firm 159.
In the 1930’s, DuPont changed its strategy and started to develop new products for the
markets it had entered previously. This movement was initiated following the economic
depression of the 1920’s and the many antitrust prosecutions the company had had to face
(Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Before experimenting with pure science, the profits of DuPont
were very solid thanks to products such as cellulose and TEL. At that time, the company
was also trying to improve its image, as it was sometimes referred to as the ‘Merchant of
Death’ due to its role during the First World War In reaction, DuPont launched a public
relation campaign: ‘Better Things for Better Living through Chemistry’ (McGrayne, 2001).
This chapter will start by looking at how a firm was able to harvest the consequences of
important scientific discoveries made at that time in the field of chemistry (A/
Attentiveness: ‘when the fruits of science were ripe’). Prior to its entry in basic
research, DuPont’s management tended to be attentive to inventions that had been
conducted outside of its walls and to secure exclusive patent rights on the promising ones.
Carothers appears as an outstanding theorician but, without a group of skilled
experimenters, a little help from providence and some systematic searches, he would not
have come up with neoprene and nylon. Looking at how Carothers worked with his
collaborators provides some hindsight into how theoretical and practical work re-enforced
each other (B/ Experimentation: theory and practice as ‘friends’).
Finally, it will show how some individuals at DuPont, Charles Stine and Elmer Bolton in
particular, convinced the management of their firms to pursue basic research work and how
others tried to persuade more scientists to look into practical issues (C/ Persuasion: the
Battle for ‘Pure Science’).
159
One technology had been developed within the firm: Dyestuff, DuPont had recruited Elmer Bolton in 1915 a
German expert to lead an experimental research project on Dyestuffs (Hermes, 1996). See infra.
242
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A/ Attentiveness: ‘when the fruits of science were ripe’
Carothers acknowledged that his interest for chemistry came from reading the popular
books of Robert Duncan. In ‘The New Knowledge’ written in 1905, this writer celebrated the
periodic law of elements as the discovery of ‘God’s alphabet of the Universe’. In 1907, he
described extensively the early applications of synthetic silk in ‘The Chemistry of Commerce’.
His collection of essays, ‘Some Chemical Problems of Today’, contained accurate predictions
that announced the possibility for men to create the materials they needed. This section will
look at how Carothers, hence, DuPont, were able to recognise and grasp the opportunities
offered by the scientific developments of their times.
When Carothers was lecturing at the University of South Dakota, he became interested in
applying to chemistry the emerging theory of valence 160 that described how molecules were
formed. Later, at the University of Illinois, Carothers became a student of Adams. Carothers
was regarded by his professor as the student who read theoretical scientific literature the
most assiduously. Compared to other chemists, he was interested in a wider variety of
scientific development (McGrayne, 2001). The attention of Carothers had been caught by
the Niels Bohr’s model of the atom, in which electrons played a key role in the formation of
bonds. He had read the work of Lewis that offered, in 1916, an interpretation of chemical
bonds between carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, as the sharing of electrons. He had
also read with interest a paper of Langmuir published in 1916 that promoted the idea of
Lewis. In his own first scientific paper published in 1923, Carothers worked on identifying
the structure of diazobenzene-imide and developed a notation to do so. To represent the
electronic bonds between atoms, he used one single dash for two electrons and a double
dash for four electrons. When at the University of Illinois, he wrote his second article, a
controversial one, entitled ‘The double bond’ which was published in 1926 in the Journal of
the American Chemical Society. In this article, Carothers used the valence force to explain
chemical reactivity of all carbon based double bond systems. The notation he adopted in this
paper was not very far from the one developed by Lewis around the same time. ‘The double
bond’ ended up being an inaccurate description of the electronic structure of organic
160
Valence is a measure of the number of chemical bonds formed by the atoms of a given element.
243
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

molecules but it was the first application of the theory of electrons to organic chemistry
(Adams, 1939).
In November 1927, as DuPont was trying to recruit Carothers, he speculated in a letter to
Bradshaw, one of their representatives, that polymers existed and that it was the valence
bond that held them together (Hermes 2001). He wrote: ‘I have been hoping that it might be
possible to tackle the problem from the synthetic side. The idea would be to build up some very
large molecules by simple and definite reactions in such a way that there could be no doubt about
their structures. This idea is no doubt a little fantastic…’ (Hounshell & Smith, 1988).
During his last months at Harvard, Carothers became interested in the macromolecule
controversy that was raging in Europe. Emil Fisher, a renowned organic chemist, had
asserted that organic compounds with a molecular weight greater than 5,000 grams per
mole could not exist. He was the one holding the record of 4,200. Most chemists agreed
with him, as they were only capable of synthesising small molecules in their laboratory at
that time. However, in 1920, Hermann Staudinger, a professor at the Eidengenössiche
Technische Hochschule in Zurich, suggested that macromolecules with molecular weights
reaching hundreds of thousands grams per mole could indeed exist. He saw such chains as
holding together by covalent bonds. First, such ideas were not backed up by empirical
evidence, but by his belief in August Kekulé 161's organic-structural view of chemistry 162.
Chemists were stunned by the ideas of Staudinger. At a conference in 1926, a chemist
supposedly reacted by saying: ‘(w)e are shocked like zoologists would be if they were told that
somewhere in Africa an elephant was found who was 1,500 feet long and 300 feet high’
(Furukawa, 1998). However, membrane osmometry and Staudinger’s own measurements of
viscosity in solution started to support his ideas of the existence of high molecular weight.
The X-ray diffraction studies of polymers also provided evidence for long chains of repeating
molecular units 163.
161
German chemist who established the foundation for the structural theory in organic chemistry.
162
Staudinger ended up winning a Nobel Prize for his ideas in 1953.
163
Mark, nevertheless, proposed a theoretical interpretation of his observation different from the one of
Staudinger.
244
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Carothers was one of the few scientists in America who had extensively read and accepted
the ideas of Staudinger 164. He knew that he had to do three things to confirm them: ‘(f)irst,
he would have to build one of Staudinger’s macromolecules. Next, he would have to confirm that
they were indeed long chained molecules, not merely aggregates of smaller molecules as others
claimed. Finally, he would have to prove that the forces holding them were ordinary valence bonds,
rather than a mysterious weak force. He planned to use such familiar chemical reactions to link
smaller molecules together that no one could doubt the identity of the resulting macromolecule or
their bonds. If Carothers succeeded in building a macromolecule, he could then examine its
properties. If they were similar to those of rubber, for example, scientists would have to agree that
rubber was a long-chained molecule held together by normal bonds’ (McGrayne, 2001).
When Carothers started to work for DuPont, he concentrated his efforts on polymers. He
dedicated more time than anyone else to reading scientific literature at the library below his
office. He refined his ideas and, three weeks after he had arrived, he proposed a programme
of work to Stine who had recruited him. He decided to work on molecules with alcohols or
acid groups at both ends, so he could keep on adding molecules to form a long chain 165. He
decided to start by combining glycol and dicarboxylic acids to produce esthers, a reaction
chemists were well accustomed to. By doing so, he hoped he could beat the record of a
molecular weight of 4,200 established by Fisher. Some months later, the record was broken
and the existence of macromolecules where atoms were held together by the valence force
was confirmed. Carothers had brought a conclusion to the macromolecule controversy.
164
Carothers was fluent in German.
165
On 14 February 1928, Carothers exposed his ideas to a chemist from Cornell University as follows: ‘(o)ne of
the problems which I am going to start work on has to do with substances of high molecular weight. I want to
attack this problem from the synthetic side. One part would be to synthesize compounds of high molecular
weight and known constitution. It would seem quite possible to beat Fischer's record of 4200. It would be a
satisfaction to do this, and facilities will soon be available here for studying such substances with the newest
and most powerful tools. Another phase of the problem will be to study the action of substances xAx on yBy
where A and B are divalent radicals and x and y are functional groups capable of reacting with each other.
Where A and B are quite short, such reactions lead to simple rings of which many have been synthesized by this
method. Where they are long, formation of small rings is not possible. Hence reaction must result either in large
rings or endless chains. It may be possible to find out which reaction occurs. In any event the reactions will lead
to the formation of substances of high molecular weight and containing known linkages. For starting materials
will be needed as many dibasic fatty acids as can be got, glycols, diamines, etc. If you know of any new sources
of compounds of these types I should be glad to hear about them’ (Adams, 1939).
245
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Undoubtedly, Carothers had been attentive to recent developments in physics that sent him
on a fruitful pathway. With Carothers, DuPont had recruited a chemist who had a strong
interest in the developments occurring in physics. He had been attentive to the recent work
of Bohr, Lewis and Langmuir. Carothers recognised that the valence force could first explain
the formation of molecules. He went on to prove the existence of macromolecules held
together by such a force. And finally, as we will see underneath, a twist of fate led Carothers
to invent neoprene and nylon.
The intimate understanding of elements, with their atoms and electrons, opened the door
to treat chemistry as a sort of language in which elements were letters that could be
combined together, according to strict rules. In 1921, Langmuir stated: ‘(t)hese things mark
the beginning of a new chemistry, a deductive chemistry, one in which we can reason out chemical
relationships without falling back on chemical intuition (…). I think that within a few years we will
be able to deduce 90% of everything that is in every textbook on chemistry, deduce it as you need
it, from simple ordinary principles, knowing definite facts in regard to the structure of the atoms’
(Hermes, 1996). Carothers was one of the first who saw this door open.
Interestingly, DuPont played no role in shaping the research work of Carothers. The
chemist had already his scientific puzzle in mind before he joined the company. In this sense,
DuPont was certainly lucky to have recruited Carothers. However, Stine, who encouraged
DuPont to invest in basic research, had decided to do so at the right time. Stine had been
attentive to the work that was conducted by Coolidge and Langmuir at General Electric, the
same Langmuir who had predicted the advent of deductive chemistry. Stine knew that basic
research work could pay back and, possibly, he understood that the recent development in
physics and their implications for chemistry offered promising opportunities (Hounshell &
Smith, 1988). He had also been in contact with Thomas Midgley, who used the periodic
table of elements to find the compounds it needed, as General Motors was owned by
DuPont. DuPont invested in basic research at the right time and Charles Stine had been
attentive to the promising signs that announced the later success of the company. However,
it should not be interpreted as a sign that basic research is always commercially fruitful.
Investing in basic research can work for companies when it is done at the right moment,
when scientific developments hold a strong deductive power, when they create explicit
246
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

knowledge that can immediately be applied to design activities, when mathematics or other
forms of formal language can be used to predict what will happen. It was the case at the
start of the 20th century with the development in physics and chemistry. It was now possible
for scientists to combine a limited number of well identified elements using few forces. This
offered a tremendous predictive and instrumentalisation power. However not all scientific
discoveries offer such a reductionism and the deductive power that comes along with it.
B/ Experimentation: theory and practice as ‘friends’
Carothers had the qualities of a scientist who addresses theoretical issues. He excelled at
mathematics and developed a system of representation of the chemical structure of
molecules. He read scientific articles at the forefront of physics and shared his knowledge
with his colleagues. He could pinpoint the significant issues in problems. He also presented
his results in a very synthetic and clear manner (Adams, 1939). Although Carothers was also
considered to be a skilled experimenter, he rarely conducted experiments himself. He used
to say that ‘95% percent of experiments can be proven with pencil and paper and don’t require
demonstration’ (McGrayne, 2001). However, it does not imply that experiments played no
role in the discoveries led by Carothers and, often, performed by his team. Theory and
practice in inventive activities should not be opposed but regarded as two sides of the same
coin that continuously feed inventive activities.
After having outlined his line of attack to produce macromolecules, Carothers and his team
proceeded with experiments 166. However, after some initial success, it appeared that they
bumped into a wall: they could not go above a molecular weight of 5,000 to 6,000.
Carothers concluded that water was possibly reverting some of the reactions they were
trying to obtain. He therefore used a new piece of equipment in his experiments: a
molecular still to eliminate the water 167. The molecular weight of the molecules his team
obtained went well beyond the 5,000. This result led him to write a series of articles where
166
DuPont was the first industrial laboratory to own an ultracentrifuge. It allowed them to determine the
molecular weight of the macromolecule they produced.
167
He had seen an exemplar of this instrument in a conference.
247
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

he invented the terminology necessary to describe polymers. He also predicted the
existence of super polymers with molecular weights above 10,000 (McGrayne, 2001).
If the scientific work appeared to follow the theoretical predictions of Carothers, the
inventions that brought a considerable source of wealth to DuPont were the result of
serendipitous experimental process.
Indeed, neoprene was discovered as part of an experiment carried out on the side of the
polymer work. In the past, DuPont had already been interested in the development of
synthetic rubber (Divinylacetylene or DVA) that had been spearheaded by the work of J.
Nieuwland, a professor from Notre Dame University. E. Bolton had succeeded to Stine and
asked Carothers to explore its chemistry (Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Carothers started to
work on this problem and, then, assigned it to Collins, a young experimenter who had
already worked with DVA. McGrayne (2001) described the surprising discovery made by
the young experimenter after many months of experiments: ‘(a)fter distilling one of the
impurities from crude DVA, Collins let the new substance sit over a weekend. When he returned to
work on Monday April 17, 1930 it had solidified into a tiny cauliflower-type mass. Collins stuck a
wire into the glass vessel and fished a few cubic centimetres of the substance out. It felt strong,
resilient and elastic, much like vulcanized rubber. Almost without thinking, Collins threw the mass
against his laboratory bench. It bounced like a golf ball. Collins had made chloroprene in his test
tube, and over the weekend it had spontaneously polymerised into the high-grade synthetic rubber
that DuPont would market as neoprene.’
Hermes (1996), himself a chemist who worked for DuPont and a biographer of Carothers,
commented on this discovery: ‘(a)ll were alert to the possibility of an unexpected finding. Collins’
isolation of the unanticipated ‘impurity’ is standard procedure; Collins’ probing at the unusual white
solid where once there had only been a liquid is the normal inquisiveness of the organic chemist.
Research is the dogged pursuit of the unexpected. For the chemists, observation levels the playing
field. Careful examination of results, diligent pursuit of the unforeseen, takes the average among us
to dine with the distinguished theoreticians, the brilliant minds, the clever experimentalists.’
248
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

It took several weeks and the sagacity of Bolton to realise the commercial value of the
discovery. 168 It brought fame to Carothers even though he considered it was more the
result of a collaborative effort to which he was one of the contributors 169. Following this
initial discovery, the Carothers’ group went on to produce 260 new compounds, a
methodical exploration that proved, however, slightly disappointing.
Two weeks after Collins had discovered neoprene, Julian Hill, a scientist in Carothers’ team
at DuPont, was working on a polymer of a molecular weight of 3300. The intent was still to
make the longest possible molecule. He heated it under high vacuum still trying to perfect
the elimination of water. Day after day, he checked it and on 30 April, 1930, he
disassembled his experiment and noticed something of interest. Crawford H. Greenewalt 170
explained later what happened: ‘(w)ell, one day one of Carothers' associates was cleaning out a
reaction vessel in which he had been making one of those polymers, and he discovered in pulling a
stirring rod out of the reaction vessel that he pulled out a fibre; and he discovered its unusual
flexibility, strength, and the remarkable ability of these polymers to cold draw. The discovery had
obvious commercial implications for DuPont, which already was in the textile business as a rayon
maker’ (Mueller, 1962).
Hill had made some important advances through this experiment (Hermes, 1996). First, he
realised that the heating of the polyester had changed the material. Second, he smashed the
record of Fisher: the filament had a molecular weight of 12000. Carothers had predicted the
existence of such super polymer but it was the accidental discovery 171 of Hill that brought it
to reality. Third, the high molecular weight came with fibre forming properties. They were
the first step towards the development of nylon 172.
168
Carothers regarded this discovery with some disdain and feared it would lead Bolton to refocus their work
towards practical applications.
169
Carothers published 23 papers on the subject but described them as ‘abundant in quantity but a little
disappointing in quality’ (Hounshell & Smith, 1988).
170
Crawford H. Greenewalt (1902-1993) was a chemical engineer and DuPont’s 10th president.
171
Carothers wrote to a friend: ‘(W)e have been enormously lucky in our research so far. We have not only a
synthetic rubber, but something theoretically more original – a synthetic silk. If these two things can be nailed
down, that will be enough for one lifetime’ (McGrayne, 2001).
172
It was only a first step as the melting point of the fiber was too low.
249
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Following this discovery, in July 1930, Hill was back at work, trying to synthesise polyamide
by combining acids with amine. Carothers and Hill knew that amides melted at higher
temperature than esthers. Therefore, polyamide looked like a promising vein of work to
develop fibres. But after some unsuccessful attempts and some experimental difficulties,
Carothers decided to abandon this line of work in the middle of 1933 (Hounshell & Smith,
1988).
Carothers was unsure about the scientific problem he wanted to pursue at this point. In
early 1934, encouraged by Bolton, he eventually came back to the problem. He already had
an idea on how to surmount the practical difficulties they were facing. He had stated the
problem as follows: he needed a fibre with high melting point/ low solubility that could be
span. But the two sides of the problem appeared mutually exclusive. He, therefore, had
hypothesised: ‘if there were some means of spinning and syntheti(s)ing [the polymer] at the same
time, as perhaps a silkworm may use, then it might be possible to get around this difficulty’
(Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Using this idea, he started extruding synthetic fibres through a
spinneret improvised from a hypodermic needle. It turned into a systematic search for
polyamide. More than 80 combinations were tested. Such efforts led, in May 1934, to a first
polyamide fibre stronger than silk and with a satisfying melting point of 200°C (Polyamide 9),
then, on July 1934, to the discovery of polyamide 5-10, and, on February 1935, to the first
polyamide 6-6. It became the first nylon after the development of the production process,
first, on a laboratory scale, then, on a semi-works scale, before the erection of a large scale
plant.
Before he committed suicide, Carothers outlined a new scientific line of attack that he never
pursued. He was puzzled by the natural synthesis of proteins. He anticipated that shape and
surface could play a role in such synthesis, one of the core principles of molecular biology
(Hermes, 1996).
Carothers was an accomplished theoretician able to frame problems, spot critical issues and
identify possible elegant solutions. But scientific and inventive work at DuPont was far from
being a pure theoretical endeavour. Reflecting on the discovery of neoprene, Hermes (1996)
commented: ‘Carothers’ fundamental theories and their patient applications were insufficient as
250
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

yet to open all of nature’s polymer secret. Collins’ observation and good luck had done it this time
for Carothers.’
Carothers outlined a programme of work by which he confirmed the initial theory he had
developed. But the discovery of neoprene and nylon needed more than an ability to
theorise. Carothers and his team bumped into walls and had to eliminate such obstacles.
Progress sometimes depended on luck and always required careful observation. It
sometimes relied on systematic lines of attack with tens of materials being tested and it
always demanded good laboratory techniques and discipline.
Basic research conducted at DuPont was not limited to theoretical work. Theory and
practice worked as friends in the DuPont laboratory. In such a context, the work of the
theoretician who leads the research activities is often the one remembered, as he gains the
recognition for it. However, without his skilled experimenters collaborating with him, he
would not be able to progress. The division of labour between the one who thinks and the
one who does should not lead us to believe that theory in inventive activities has taken over
Experimentation. Theory is practice turned into information, and Experimentation is the
consequence of the knowledge accumulated at a given moment in time. Each is a constituent
of the other. One does not have priority over the other. In this case, Carothers had made
some daring theoretical assumptions that proved to be right and, in a move to verify them, a
number of practical, controllable and economically valuable phenomena were discovered.
C/ Persuasion: the battle for ‘Pure Science’
The career of Carothers at DuPont lasted nine years. Two years after he joined the
company, Elmer Bolton became the director of the basic research effort. He advocated
more focus on practical applications of science compared to Charles Stine who had
recruited Carothers. Indeed Stine had persuaded the management of the company to invest
in basic research that he called ‘Pure Science’.
Before getting interested in ‘Pure Science’, Charles Stine had worked on developing a process
for an explosive known as TNT for DuPont in 1909. As assistant chemical director in 1921,
he had suggested that his laboratory should act as a contract laboratory that would also
251
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

work for other companies. It was refused but he was allowed to open discussions with
General Motors, more specifically with Kettering and Midgley, in order to collaborate on
research work. He suggested investigating the scientific properties of fuel but the offer was
not taken up by General Motors representatives.
Charles Stine submitted his first proposal to pursue basic research in DuPont in December
1926 through a short memorandum addressed to the executive committee of the company.
It was entitled: ‘Pure Science work’. In this memorandum, he suggested departing from the
existing strategy of DuPont, which consisted in applying scientific knowledge to practical
problems, and starting to investigate significant scientific issues. He drew the attention of the
reader to the successful case of the German chemical industry and to General Electric
research activities. He suggested that what he proposed was not an ‘untried experiment’
(Hermes, 1996). He outlined four reasons why DuPont should commit to such a change of
approach: (1) it was to bring scientific prestige and ‘advertising value’, (2) it would improve
the morale of the young chemists and help recruit scientists with PhDs, (3) it could help to
access knowledge of other research institutions, and, (4) it could bring practical
discoveries 173 (Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Stine believed that the first three reasons should
suffice to launch such an effort. However, his proposal was rejected on the basis that it
lacked a clear focus in terms of scientific fields.
Stine discussed his proposal with Whitney, from General Electric, and with other scientific
research leaders, both from universities and the industry. He wrote a second memorandum
about ‘fundamental research’ and no more about ‘Pure Science’. Fundamental research was
certainly a terminology that was more appropriate for DuPont’s executive committee. Stine
established an interesting distinction between ‘pioneering applied research’ and ‘fundamental
research’. He described the first one as a sort of gamble that might not produce result,
because it might not be based on sound scientific facts, and the second one as a means to
discover the foundation of chemistry that had to yield significant results in the long run. He
also suggested a series of scientific domains that could be investigated, and outlined for each
one of them the reasons why basic research should be pursued. The list of topics included,
amongst others, colloid chemistry, catalysis and organic synthesis. For catalysis, he explained
173
The first two reasons outlined by Stine are Persuasion type of reasons and the third one is an Attentiveness
type of reason. The last one is to be expected from any inventive activities.
252
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

that there was no scientific basis to select the best catalysis in a given situation and that
basic research could help to make explicit the knowledge required to do so (Hounshell &
Smith, 1988).
The proposal was approved. Stine had prepared the ground by talking regularly with
Lammot DuPont 174, who had just replaced Irénée DuPont. Moreover, the financial results of
the company were good.
In 1927, Stine received a budget to build a new laboratory that was nicknamed ‘Purity Hall’,
due to the ‘Pure Science’ dreams of Stine. He also started to look for ‘(m)en of exceptional
scientific promise but (with) no established reputation’. Initially, he was looking for 25 men
(Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Stine had many difficulties to find them and attract them to a
corporate laboratory. He promised people like Carothers full freedom in their research
work, a salary well above the one they could get in the academic field and all the resources
they needed to pursue their work. After initially refusing the offer, Carothers finally
accepted the job. Upon his start, he wrote to a friend: ‘(a) week of industrial slavery has
already elapsed without breaking my proud spirit (…). Regarding funds, the sky is the limit. I can
spend as much as I please. Nobody asks any questions as to how I am spending my time or what
my plans are for the future. Apparently it is all up to me’ (McGrayne, 2002).
The freedom given to Carothers was such that he sometimes complained about the absence
of a research director. He did not realise he was fulfilling this role. In other areas of
research, the freedom given to the scientists had unexpected consequences. Lenher, a
colleague of Carothers, realised that, when given such freedom, ‘most of the people played
safe’ and concentrated on narrow areas of work (Hermes, 1996).
In June 1930, Bolton became the director of DuPont’s chemical department, as Stine was
appointed to the executive committee of the company. His approach was different from
Stine’s. Because of his involvement in dyestuff work, Bolton appeared as an advocate of
practical research 175. He feared poor return on investment of basic research. He saw the
174
Upon approval of the basic research programme, Stine wanted to announce it in the press but Lammot, who
enjoyed sawing wood as a hobby, recommended to Stine ‘Saw the wood and let the publicity take care of itself’
(Hermes 1996).
175
He wrote in 1928 ‘research work has been, and will continue to be, the key to success in all of our industries’
but he added that it was necessary that ‘results obtained are commensurate with the investment’ (Hermes, 1996).
253
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

timing of research as important. He emphasised practical goals, the fourth reason mentioned
by Stine, which had been regarded, so far, as an extra benefit. Carothers realised that the
new approach of Bolton was causing disarray: ‘(t)he only guide we have for formulating and
critici(s)ing our own research problems is the rather desperate feeling that they should show a profit
at the end. As a result, I think that our problems are being undertaken in a spirit of uncertainty and
scepticism without any faith in a successful outcome or even without clear idea of what would
create a successful outcome’ (Hounshell & Smith, 1988).
In November 1930, Carothers faced resistance when he wanted to publish immediately the
findings related to synthetic fibres. In late 1931, Berger, the assistant of Bolton organised a
meeting on the charter and usefulness of basic research. He warned the scientists against a
‘gambling spirit‘. He advocated the ‘thorough going cultivation of a field‘ (Hermes, 1996) and a
‘fast follower’ attitude. Most importantly, Bolton and Berger were unsatisfied with the
isolation of their scientists. By 1932, the research teams were aligned with the business
fields. Half of the original researchers who had joined the basic research effort had now left
(Hounshell & Smith, 1988). Carothers’ reputation helped him to defend his views and
certainly offered him a special status. He defended McGrayne the idea of basic research but
agreed to continue basic research work on two or three carefully selected projects aligned
with the company’s interests 176 (Hermes, 1996). By 1934, he was spending a quarter of his
time on diverse problems coming from other DuPont departments (, 2001). Carothers
thought of going back to Harvard but never did.
How can this evolution be interpreted? Should the changes introduced by Bolton be
interpreted as a disengagement from basic research? Should they be regarded as a source of
confusion for the scientists? Should they be considered as a breach of DuPont initial
engagements? The two last questions are open to interpretation whereas the first one
should be explored with great attention.
176
In May 1933, he wrote to a friend: ‘I struggle along as a Group Leader, which is to say, a kind of a clerk. I
never had any talent for clerical matters, and haven’t developed along those lines to speak of. Research lately
has been rather foul on account of the depression. My budget hasn’t been cut. We are still spending money like
nothing at all; but an atmosphere of anxiety has arisen which causes us to scrutinize topics from a misty
standpoint of what maybe ultimately practical’ (Hermes, 1996).
254
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Bolton did not advocate a full disengagement from basic research. He wanted to pursue it
but with some sort of alignment with the existing business fields of the corporation. He
wanted less isolation from the scientist and a focus on incremental improvement, as
opposed to the pursuit of a scientific revolution. Bolton wanted to maintain a certain level
of attention of the scientists working for him on the practical challenges encountered by the
business. It is important to note here that Bolton played a significant role in turning the
theoretical work of Carothers into something useful for DuPont. He was the one who
encouraged Carothers to work on DVA and he also recognised the commercial value of
neoprene. For synthetic fibres, he was the one who encouraged Carothers to come back to
polyamide fibre work. He was also the one who forced the team to pursue the work on
polyamide 6-6 for its practical value, when Carothers was more interested in investigating
further polyamide 5-10 for scientific reasons. In other words, Bolton was the one who, by
being attentive to the business needs, had contributed to make the work of Carothers have
a significant financial retribution for DuPont.
Carothers would have never joined DuPont without Charles Stine and his grand plan for
‘Pure Science’. And at the same time, nylon and neoprene might not have been invented by
the DuPont team if Bolton had not encouraged a certain attention on practical issues. All
this created a sort of creative tension.
Finding the right balance between a sole focus on scientific issues and a sole focus on
business problems has continued to be a difficult exercise for many companies who have
invested in Research and Development (R&D) activities. Many scientists, executives,
research directors have employed their ability to persuade others to support their own
views in this debate but a clear cut and an optimum point has never been easy to find.
255
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter II. Collective arrangement: the ‘Soft Hand’
The study of the three career inventors has shown that working for a firm changed the way
inventors conducted their inventive practices. Their Attentiveness was guided by principals.
They had to pursue goals provided to them by others within the firm but needed, at the
same time, to be attentive to what happened within other parts of the firm and outside of it.
They had to use their ability to persuade others to protect the interest of the firm, they
were sometimes subject to management changes within the firm that affected them.
This chapter introduces the metaphor of the ‘Soft Hand’ in order to describe the collective
arrangement called industrial or research laboratory. To do so, the example of Willis
Whitney, the first director of the research laboratory of General Electric, between 1900
and 1932, will be used. He encouraged scientists within the laboratory to exchange
information amongst themselves, with people in other departments of General Electric and
with the outside world. By doing so, he superposed a network to a hierarchy. This ‘Soft
Hand’ aimed at preventing an organisational failure fostered by the visible hand: secrecy.
‘The Visible Hand’ by Chandler (1977) explains the rise of large firms that started at the end
of the 19th century. As means of communication and transportation developed and started
to cover the United States, mass production industries emerged. Firms, working within
these industries, had to integrate backward and forward to address operational problems in
their process. Existing wholesalers were not capable of distributing their products on time,
suppliers were not able to respond to their capacity problems. Hierarchies brought
adequate standardisation, coordination and control mechanisms to solve such problems.
Langlois (2003) explained the origin of the title of the book published by Chandler: ‘Smith
had predicted an increasingly fine division of labour as the response to a growing extent of the
market; and, although he was actually quite vague on the organisational consequences of the
division of labour, Smith was clear in his insistence on the power of the invisible hand of markets to
coordinate economic activity. Chandler’s account appears to challenge this prediction: internal
organi(s)ation and managerial authority became necessary to coordinate the industrial economy of
256
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the late nineteenth and early twentieth century’s. The visible hand of managerial coordination had
replaced the invisible hand of the market.’
As outlined by Lamoreaux, Raff and Temin (2002), hierarchies helped to solve issues but had
their limitations: ‘to work well as coordination mechanisms, however, the directives issued by
superiors must be obeyed. The problem is that subordinates may follow only those orders that they
perceive to be in their own interests, or in the interests of their part of the organisation, and ignore
other instructions. Or they may have different ideas about what to do. If the organi(s)ation is large
or if the contributions of individual workers are difficult to disentangle from those of other
employees, superiors may have only imperfect knowledge of what their subordinates are doing and
may not be able to detect and punish such deviations. Subordinates, therefore, may be able to
exploit this ‘principal-agent’ problem to engage in behaviours that are contrary to the wishes of their
superiors’.
In the historical account proposed by Chandler, the ‘Visible Hand’ appears very much as a
means to solve and optimise operational issues. The management attention is given to
purchasing, manufacturing, distribution and commercial activities. The study of the railroad
industry demonstrated that such integration and optimisation process was conducted
through inventive hierarchies where the ‘Visible Hand’ was focusing on cost reduction and
standardisation. It was done by adopting a specific collective arrangement in which the
Attentiveness of engineers was directed at internal problems that could demonstrate
significant financial returns. We saw that more radical innovations that were readily available
outside of the railroad companies tended to be ignored. The research laboratories, at the
start at the 20th century, could not ignore inventive activities occurring outside of their walls
and their leaders had to stimulate open innovation.
This chapter will explore a specific case: the General Electric research laboratory through
the metaphor of the ‘Soft Hand’ to describe how a research director like Willis Whitney
tried to make best use of both networks and hierarchies. A theoretical background
(Section I) will contextualise the case study (Section II).
257
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Section I - Theoretical background
A network has been defined 177 as sets of relationships between individuals (not firms) facing
uncertainty. When uncertainty prevails, attentive inventors tend to form networks to share
and gather useful information that could lead to a winning combination of factors. They
acquire information, they experiment with others and they enhance their reputation and
build their social capital as they interact with established inventors, investors entrepreneurs,
etc. Such relationships can be interpreted as one-offs or repeated transactions, in which
information is exchanged for free.
At a given time, the value of an individual piece of information is nil. Later, different pieces of
information combined together have potential scientific or economic value, especially as
they can be appropriated using a publication or, for instance, through a patent. It is
important to note that, within such a network, all participants are not trying to create
similar combinations. Some might, and therefore are in competition, but some do not.
There is also a ‘public pool of knowledge’, corresponding to all information published
beforehand through patents, scientific or technical magazines, or simply embedded in
existing equipment. The value of a combination cannot be re-assigned ex-post to the
different pieces of information, it is solely attributable to the combination as a whole.
In such a network, individuals might be competing to create similar combinations or more
precisely to create combinations that respond to the same needs. Participants to the
network can decide to what extent they want to freely share information with others, or if
they prefer to invest time and money in experiments in order to create new pieces of
information that could be potentially useful and patentable if associated with the existing
ones they have. When a high level of uncertainty prevails, participants have an incentive to
share information, as it will provide them access to other information that could, in the
longer run, provide them with a useful and patentable combination178. When less uncertainty
prevails, when, for instance, they believe they are close to having a useful and patentable
177
See infra.
178
This type of situation is similar to the one encountered during the analysis of inventors’ networks during the
late 18th century in Britain or for the early railroad industry in America during the 19th century.
258
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

combination, they tend not to share to prevent their competitors from acquiring a similar
combination before them.
It could be represented by a sort of game where a number of players have pieces of
different jigsaw puzzles that can each go in more than one puzzle. As an example, a scientist
working for a university tries to solve scientific puzzles, when a scientist working for a firm
tends to try to solve economic puzzles. All participants can immediately duplicate the pieces
of jigsaw puzzle they have at no cost in order to exchange them. At any time, participants
can decide to build by themselves a new piece that could of use to them, or to exchange
one, or more, pieces they already have with others. Participants win when they are the first
ones to build a useful combination. In such a game, a number of parameters can vary that
can form the basis of some experimental work 179:
• Diversity: number of puzzles that can be solved;
• Complexity: number of pieces in the jigsaw puzzle;
• Uncertainty: how likely one is to build a piece that will complement one or more
you already have;
• Cost of Experimentation: number of pieces you can exchange for one you can build;
• Heterogeneity: the extent to which one piece is used, on average, in more than one
puzzle.
What happens when some of the participants to the network are working for a hierarchy?
Such participants are agents who tend to act secretively (no exchange of information) for
two main reasons:
(1) They comply with the request of the principal to protect the interest of the firm by not
sharing information that could have an economic value in the future. A principal would
notice such a leakage and would, therefore, sanction the agent;
179
For instance, it would be interesting to create specific situations that describe different realities. High
diversity – low complexity – low uncertainty - low cost of Experimentation – low heterogeneity could
correspond as a hypothesis to an industrial district type of situation when low diversity - high complexity – high
uncertainty – high cost of Experimentation – high heterogeneity could correspond as a hypothesis to situations
of science base oligopolies.
259
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(2) They pursue their self-interest by not sharing information with other agents within the
firm in a context of division of labour, therefore creating information asymmetries from
which they hope to benefit. The only information they share is scientific or technical
information, usually presented as publications that have been endorsed by the principal as
having no economic value because of the nature of the information itself or because it is
already protected by a patent. It provide them with a way to signal the quality of their work
to the outside world which appears to be, for the research laboratories, a means to attract
and retain scientists who want to publish and, for the firms, a means to signal that it is
conducting quality research work.
Section II - The ‘Soft Hand’ at the General Electric research
laboratory
How did the first director of the first research laboratory, Willis Whitney, act in this
situation? It appears that he adopted a ‘Soft Hand’ approach that encouraged scientists to
exchange information (1) amongst each other; (2) with people from other departments
within the firm and (3) with people outside the firm. He did this in order to improve the
efficiency of the laboratory as a whole, and ensure it would serve the interest of General
Electric. The ‘Soft Hand’ approach overlaps networks, free transaction of information, to a
hierarchy, in order to prevent secrecy, a specific type of organisational failure.
This study will first look at how Whitney ensured the organisation worked as a hierarchy in
order to protect the interest of the firm (A/ The ‘Minimal visible hand) and, then, how
he encouraged the network approach in order to increase efficiency. (B/ The ‘Soft Hand’
within the laboratory; C/ The ‘Soft Hand’ with other departments of General
Electric; D/ The ‘Soft Hand’ with the outside world).
260
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A/ The minimal visible hand
The first point of contact between the laboratory and the rest of the company was the
patent department. During the first years of existence of the laboratory, Whitney sent
monthly reports and memoranda to them when he thought he had something of interest.
During the 1910’s, the General Electric’s attorney visited the laboratory on a regular basis
to look for ideas to be patented. (Reich, 1985)
Whitney made sure that scientists kept records of their work through a system of
numbered notebooks. Personnel were expected to write something every day. He also
made sure that the rooms and their equipment were photographed on a regular basis. All
this was done to protect inventions and support the patent department, should a legal case
occur (Reich, 1985).
Whitney acted in this situation as a Visible hand, trying to make all valuable information
visible within the firm, in order to prevent asymmetries and protect the interests of General
Electric.
B/ The ‘Soft Hand’ within the laboratory
At the start of the laboratory, secrecy reigned, information sharing and teamwork were
lacking within the research laboratory. Davis, the manager of the patent department,
compared the workplace to a ‘menagerie‘ or a ‘bear pit‘ (Miller, 1963). It was due to the
recruitment, in the early years, of foreign born scientists, who brought with them an idea of
science where secrecy and individualism prevailed (Wise, 1985). Whitney later ensured that
he recruited people who could work well in the context of the ‘Soft Hand’ approach he
adopted and integrate easily within the laboratory 180. He also favoured people with
versatility in their scientific training, as opposed to people with a narrow focus.
180
He sometimes invited people he intended to recruit to the colloquium of the laboratory to observe their
reactions (Wise, 1985).
261
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The workplace was envisaged in such a way that it could encourage cooperation. Coolidge
commented: ‘(t)he workrooms were originally provided with doors but these doors were finally
removed because the director didn’t like to open a door and disconcert the scientific occupant who
happened to be busy at the time with his daily paper’ (Miller, 1963).
Whitney did not appreciate bureaucratic structures: ‘I dread organi(s)ation and system so
much that I want to warn others from expending much time and effort upon it’ (Reich, 1985). He
created the position of ‘Executive engineer’ to remove this burden from him. However, after
a few years, he dedicated himself to the management of the people within the laboratory,
and abandoned research work.
Whitney wanted to keep the morale and motivation high, even if it meant that some of his
best scientists would work for some time on their own projects dealing with basic research.
He offered this latitude especially to people like Langmuir. He called this ‘more rope, more
liberty’ (Wise, 1985). It apparently worked adversely to the logic of the Visible hand: why
would a firm let an employee work on a problem of his like? Simply, in this case, to keep his
morale high and ensure in the long term an optimum contribution from this agent.
According to Arthur D. Little 181, who knew him well: ‘Whitney can talk to a man for three
minutes and inject into him enough enthusiasm to last three months’ (Reich, 1985). In fact,
Whitney adapted his personal style to each individual in the laboratory, he recognised that
different people needed different types of encouragement and support. He had, for instance,
nicknamed two of his people ‘Ne‘ and ‘No‘ and trained himself to understand what would
work with each of them (Wise, 1985). He treated his scientists as ‘specific assets‘ and tried
to understand what made them loyal and efficient. The turnover of the laboratory was
considered to be low.
In the 1920’s, he had people like Coolidge and Langmuir to act as informal leaders in charge
of performing a loose oversight of a small group of researchers (Reich, 1985). By doing so,
he ensured that they shared their own information and knowledge without putting them
into a classic principal-agent situation they would have disliked. The executive engineer
would also organise small groups to regularly meet and discuss common concerns (Reich,
1985). It also encouraged information sharing.
181
Arthur D. Little was one of the first strong promoters of science in business.
262
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

He toured the laboratory every day and encouraged everyone to look for him at any time.
He enjoyed asking people: ‘what fun are you having now?’ 182 (Wise, 1985). He brought with
him Langmuir, Coolidge or another of his informal leader when a project was at a critical
stage. They all could offer suggestions. He believed in cross-fertilisation and encouraged the
apparent ‘luck’ that could emerge from such exchanges.
Coolidge said, referring to Whitney, that ‘the strong effort which he made to have everyone in
the laboratory know as much as possible about what every other member of the staff was doing
resulted in close scientific contacts within the group’ (Miller, 1963).
Weekly conferences, called ‘colloquia’, were organised for the whole staff. A subject of
discussion was selected in advance, a member of the staff would present his recent work
and the problems he faced which would lead to questions. It supported teamwork 183 (Miller,
1963). Whitney understood that such practices could be problematic: ‘(i)n new and fertile
fields, morally the property for a while of an individual, is it fair to ask him to open the field?’
However, he believed that all would gain more from such practices in the longer run (Wise,
1985). This clearly demonstrates that he understood the potential destructive effect of
secrecy and, therefore, consciously adopted a ‘Soft Hand’ approach to avoid it.
C/ The ‘Soft Hand’ and the other departments of General Electric
Establishing regular information exchanges between the research laboratory and other
departments of General Electric was important in order to maximize the contribution of the
laboratory to the company. It is important to keep in mind that General Electric established
the laboratory in order to defend its position against market competitors. Diversification, as
a strategy, came later and still required extensive information exchange, especially in relation
to the transfer of activities towards manufacturing entities.
182
Whitney explained: ‘I have tried this experiment many times. I ask a fellow in the lab ‘what fun are you
having now?’ I know by the look I get that he is swamped in the gloom of uncertainty mixed with tiny spots of
hope. What good can I do listening to his last month’s success? It is the current wall of impenetrable fog which
is painfully in his mind. So I have found (by his teaching me) that he is apt to ‘come out of it’ if any ignorant
cuss makes him slowly and completely tell his troubles. That’s me’ (Wise, 1985).
183
Whitney believed that such type of activities ‘affects the personnel by effecting closer and more friendly
intercourse (not one against the other but we against the world) utmost importance’ (Reich, 1985).
263
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Right from the start of the laboratory, Whitney breached one of the early golden rules
established at the creation of the laboratory: ‘separation from manufacturing’. He accepted the
task of solving some of the problems brought by manufacturing engineers without focusing
solely on such internal problems. It contributed to keeping his people in touch with the
needs of the business and to establish the legitimacy of the laboratory 184 (Reich, 1985).
This approach was pursued by Coolidge, who described the policy of the laboratory as
follows, when he became research director: ‘problems are continuously arising in other
departments in which our help is needed’. According to him, the laboratory acted as a ‘service
department’ (Liebhafsky, 1974). For radically new devices, he added: ‘it then is needful for us to
develop it and perhaps even to manufacture for a time’. However, he emphasised: ‘we never
manufacture when another department is ready to do so’ (Liebhafsky, 1974). Such early internal
manufacturing activities were also a way to pay for the cost of the laboratory. It encouraged
Whitney and his team to continuously assess the value of the laboratory to the company.
An advisory council served to bring problems of the company to the attention of Whitney
and his team. Representatives from other departments brought their financial, commercial,
technical and manufacturing knowledge to approve major projects. Smaller ones could be
undertaken at the discretion of Whitney (Reich, 1985).
Other product or standardising committees helped the leaders of the laboratory to stay in
touch with the needs of the company. Whitney assigned to the executive engineers the role
of maintaining the relationships with the manufacturing activities of General Electric.
Sometimes, the laboratory took people in from other business areas and trained them
before sending them back. They eased the transfer of knowledge. Scientists from the
laboratory would, at certain periods, make frequent trips to the lamp factory and engineers
from the factory to the laboratory. It eased considerably the start and the transfer of
production towards manufacturing (Reich, 1985).
184
When Mees, from Kodak, visited Whitney, he said to him: ‘it is not safe to assume that we are indispensable
to the company’ (Reich, 1985). This way of thinking legitimises a certain entrepreneurial spirit and a continuous
desire to demonstrate the usefulness of the laboratory.
264
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

D/ The ‘Soft Hand’ and the outside world
The preceding chapter dedicated to Coolidge showed that the research laboratory had
demonstrated an open innovation approach. However, it was more than just the result of
competitive pressure or a spontaneous order, it was a trend supported by Whitney who
had adopted a ‘Soft Hand’ approach that encouraged people to exchange information with
the outside world.
First, a well-furnished scientific and technical library was available to researchers working at
the General Electric research laboratory. However, Whitney tended to encourage his
scientists not to depend on the results they got from literature. One of his men mentioned
that, if one had an idea, he would tell you: ‘(f)ine, but try it out first before you read about it’
(Reich, 1985). It was, nevertheless, a place where one could access the public knowledge
and scout for worthwhile exchanges with the outside world. Coolidge mentioned about one
of their colloquium: ‘(t)hen there was the weekly, Saturday colloquium, which often brought a
distinguished scientist from outside to talk to us’ (Miller, 1963). General Electric agents in
Europe sent reports of what was happening there, regarding developments in science and
technologies of interest to the company (Wise, 1985).
Whitney also toured laboratories in Europe. He brought back equipment. He offered
financial support and other sorts of research supports to leading European scientists.
Supporting scientific work in university laboratories became a policy of the research
laboratory. Whitney was convinced that such expenses would pay back dividends.
Coolidge saw the contribution to science as an entry ticket to developing useful
relationships with the scientific and technical community: ‘each contribution we can make to
the advancement of scientific knowledge increase our contacts with other workers in science,
through attendance by our men at meetings of scientific societies for the presentation of papers,
and through interchange of visits’ (Liebhafsky, 1974). Approval before scientific publication was
needed. However findings with no commercial value were expected to be published
immediately. When commercial value was foreseen, there delays could be long before
publishing. The output was nevertheless low compared to university laboratories.
265
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Coolidge mentioned encouragements by Whitney to interact with the wider scientific
community: ‘(w)e were encouraged to attend meetings of scientific societies, and finally, to publish
all worthwhile results, and to do so under our own names, not just the name of the laboratory’
(Miller, 1963). Whitney was himself a member of a number of scientific organisations. It
helped him maintain professional contacts and to access knowledge. It was maintained even
though it was noticed that it had helped competitors in a number of situations (Reich, 1985).
Here again, Whitney understood the ‘Visible hand’ perspective but still favoured the ‘Soft
Hand’ approach, in order to optimise the output of the laboratory in the longer run. It
proved to be a successful approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Closing remarks on the ‘Soft Hand’
The ‘Soft Hand’ is a metaphor that is used here to describe the functioning of a specific
collective arrangement dedicated to inventive activities: the industrial or research
laboratory. Such an arrangement is used to perform expensive Experimentation, it uses
scientific knowledge and is integrated within a firm engaged in competitive activities. The
scientists employed within such a collective arrangement are subject to the agency theory,
and secrecy as an organisational failure needs to be overcome by the ‘Soft Hand’. This
approach relates to Attentiveness:
• People from the laboratory are encouraged to remain attentive to scientific and
technical developments occurring outside of the firm by joining scientific societies,
touring other companies, attending colloquia and conferences, hosting scientists, etc.;
• People from the laboratory are encouraged to remain attentive to the needs of other
departments of General Electric in order to demonstrate its ability to respond to the
needs of the business;
• People from the laboratory are encouraged to remain attentive to the work of each
other in order to foster teamwork and cross-fertilisation.
It helped also to persuade others of the value of the work conducted at the General Electric
laboratory:
266
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

• Persuading people outside of General Electric that the laboratory was performing
high quality scientific work, which would encourage the exchange of information
with them;
• Persuading other people within General Electric that the laboratory could serve the
needs of the firm (products with commercial value, ease of transfer towards
manufacturing, etc.);
• Persuading high calibre scientists to join and remain within the laboratory.
In this presentation of a collective arrangement, hierarchies and networks are superposed
intentionally to each other. Along the lines of the metaphor used by Smith and Chandlers,
the metaphor of the ‘Soft Hand’ describes an intentional approach aiming at preventing
secrecy as an organisational failure. Other cases could be developed to further demonstrate
the relevance of this concept 185.
185 Experimental work could also be conducted along the lines of the puzzle game presented above. Such an
approach would contribute to the exploration of the challenge outlined by Zenger, Lazzarini & Poppo (2001):
the understanding of how formal and informal organisations interact with each other. ‘Scholars have not
sufficiently explored the interactions between formal and informal institutions. We contend that the failure to
integrate these concepts into a common theory has led to faulty reasoning and significant weakness in theories
of economic organi(s)ation (…). We argue that the managers’ implicit task is to shape informal and formal
institutions influencing the operation of an organi(s)ational form in such a way as to increase the functionality
that they collectively deliver’ (Zenger, Lazzarini & Poppo, 2001).
267
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Chapter III - The rise and limits of industrial laboratories
The first chapter outlined, using the A-E-P triptych, the way inventors started to work for
industrial firms within what was called ‘industrial’ or ‘research laboratories’, where
expensive Experimentation could be conducted. The second one focused on how those
industrial laboratories were managed thanks to the metaphor of the ‘Soft Hand’, a hand that
channelled the Attentiveness of inventors and re-enforced their Persuasion capacity. At the
start of the 20th century, the industrial laboratory, equipped with the methods of science,
appeared as a collective arrangement that would outperform the independent inventors
who were reigning on inventive activities at the end of the 19th century. History
nevertheless shows that it was, however, one collective arrangement amongst others.
Collective arrangements supporting inventive hierarchies do not compete against but
complemented each other.
This third chapter investigates the forces that shape the division of labour between the
different collective arrangements that support inventive activities and will conclude by
proposing a taxonomy. To do so, it looks at the discrepancies between reality and
discourses that presented research laboratories as a supreme collective arrangement
supporting inventive practices. This analysis uses the A-E-P triptych to reveal the conditions
of success and the limitations of research laboratories, and, consequently, of other forms of
collective arrangements. The analysis covers a period that goes from the early years of the
20th century to the 1970’s. It investigates the history of inventive activities within A.T.T. and
what happened in terms of discovery, diffusion and exploitation of one of its major
inventions, the transistor.
Under the guidance of the ‘Soft Hand’ of management, industrial laboratories served the
interest of the firms that had established them, while contributing to the development of
scientific and technical knowledge. The pioneers of industrial research, such as the General
Electric research laboratory or the Bell Laboratory, the research arm of A.T.T., created a
false perception of the work that was conducted within their walls. They celebrated the end
of an era of independent inventors in order to persuade decision makers in firms and
governments of the value of performing science for business. A first section will investigate
268
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the pioneering years of industrial laboratories with their specific regime of invention
(Section I).
A passion for science emerged out of the Second World War and re-enforced the belief
that basic research conducted in-house by large firms was the path to economic success.
The transistor appeared over time as a mighty example of what research laboratories, such
as the Bell laboratories, could do. However, we will investigate how the celebration of
industrial laboratories after the Second World War contributed to make them
unproductive because of a loss of attention to the realities of the business and the isolation
of corporate scientists (Section II).
Different regimes of inventions took the transistor out of the hands of A.T.T. to mainstream
and exploit it. Product development teams within specialised firms, such as Texas
Instruments, and networks of inventors in the Silicon Valley appear as collective
arrangements complementary to the research laboratory within the history of the transistor
and semi-conductor technology. We will conclude by looking at the division of labour
between those different regimes of invention using the the A-E-P triptych and a taxonomy
of uncertainty 186 (Section III).
Section I. The pioneering years of industrial laboratories
The undertaking of science as a means to support the long term development of a company
was not initiated by American firms. In Germany, during the last decades of the 19th century,
firms such as Bayer, Hoechst, BASF or Siemens sponsored research conducted within
universities. It gave them access to scientific knowledge and opportunities to recruit
competent graduates. In return, it provided scientists access to expensive instruments,
186 This chapter will build on the history of industrial laboratories that has been developed within different
academic fields. On the one hand, economists such as Mowery & Rosenberg (1989) or Freeman & Soete (1997)
have tried to offer synthetic analysis of the development of industrial laboratories. On the other hand, business
historians like Hounshell (1996) or Reich (1985) have offered in depth analysis of what happened within some
of the pioneering firms.
269
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

materials and chemicals (Hounshell, 1996). However, it was American firms that first
internalised such scientific activities in what they called industrial laboratories.
Reich (1985), who produced one of the most comprehensive studies of the genesis of
industrial laboratories, defines them as ‘set apart from production facilities, staffed by people
trained in science and advanced engineering who work towards deeper understanding of corporate
related science and technology and who are organised and administered to keep themselves
somewhat insulated from immediate demands yet responsive to long-term company needs.‘
In America, it was a small number of firms that spearheaded industrial research: General
Electric (G.E.), American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (A.T.T.), E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co. (DuPont) and Eastman Kodak (Kodak), as well as a few other companies, including
General Chemical (laboratory founded in 1900), Dow (1900), Standard Oil of Indiana
(1906), Goodyear (1909) and American Cyanamid (1912). Among these other five
companies, only Standard Oil’s research exerted considerable influence on national patterns
of R&D in the period before the First World War (Hounshell, 1996).
Arthur D. Little estimated the number of firms that had undertaken research programmes
to be around fifty (Hounshell, 1996). Reich (1985) reports that, by 1931, more than 1600
companies supported research laboratories employing close to 33,000 people. By 1940, he
reports that 2,000 maintained laboratories with a total of 77,000 employees. According to
him, such figures include plant laboratories dealing with quality control 187 issues, material
testing activities, and production optimisation. Although different sources report different
figures, the figures presented above demonstrate clear trends related to the growth of
research activities. Research laboratories, as defined above, were mainly present in the
chemical, electrical, petroleum and rubber industries.
Research activities easily mix with engineering ones and can sometimes be amalgamated
with them. Engineering activities had extensively developed during the late 19th century and
187
Additionally to research laboratories, a number of independent research laboratories were established.
According to Mowery (1990), 350 of them appeared between 1900 and 1940 and employed more than 5,000
scientists and engineers by 1946 (Mowery, 1990).
270
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

at the start of the 20th century. The number of engineering graduates went from 45,000 in
1900 to 230,000 by 1930. The mission of engineers was mainly to reduce and optimise the
costs of the operating systems, manufacturing facilities or products. According to Henry
Towne, a prominent engineer from the turn of the 20th century: ‘(t)he dollar is the final term
of every engineering equation’ (Noble, 1977). After the standardisation of parts and the
standardisation of materials, engineers were standardising ways of working in the large
factories that had emerged across the country.
Industrial laboratories appeared for a number of interconnected reasons:
• Key patents of G.E. and A.T.T. expired in the 1890’s, meant that these large
businesses had to respond to the competitive threats (Hounshell, 1996). They used
patents to defend their existing position. Industrial laboratories became an important
asset in order to do so;
• These pioneers also faced antitrust policies (Mowery, 1990). As cartels were under
scrutiny of the government, firms reacted by initiating a wave of mergers. Central
functions were established to coordinate the different lines of business. Such central
functions included a central research laboratory (Mowery, 1990);
• As industrial laboratories demonstrated their ability to create new products and
technologies, they accompanied the diversification and expansion of those industrial
groups (Mowery, 1990);
• They could only be afforded by the giant and wealthy firms such as A.T.T., G.E or
DuPont.
During the last decades of the 19th century, Bell had started a considerable effort to control
patents that could threaten the business. Theodore Vail, who was made president of the
company by J.P. Morgan in 1907, established an ‘experimental’ or ‘engineering’ department
that was ‘to study the patents, study the development and study these devices that either were
originated by our own people or came in to us from the outside. Then, early in 1879, we started our
patent department, whose business was entirely to study the question of patents but came out with
a view to acquiring them, because (…) we recognised that if we did not control these devices
somebody else would do‘ (Noble, 1977). A.T.T. was established in 1885. After 1894,
271
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

competition intensified with the expiration of the original Bell patent. Vail appointed Carty
to consolidate research activities within A.T.T. ‘By 1910, however, there were 192 engineers
doing development work under Carty, with annual expenditures of half a million dollars. By 1916,
this number had increased to 959 with expenditures of $1.5 million, and by 1930 A.T.T. was
spending $25 million dollars for research‘ (Noble, 1977).
The regime on invention characteristics of the pioneering firms can be described as follows:
THE PIONEERING YEARS
Attentiveness Industrial laboratories were attentive to inventions occurring outside of
the firm in order to anticipate competitive threat and possibly turn them
into opportunities.
Industrial laboratories were established far from the manufacturing
activities. However, they needed to concentrate their efforts on the
core business activities of the firm they served.
Industrial laboratories were attentive to scientific developments. They
benefited from the ‘golden age of physics’ which brought them new
instruments and scientific knowledge that could be put to good use.
Experimentation Teamwork was a key characteristic of inventive activities in industrial
laboratories. Experiments indeed required a combination of theorists
and experimenters and more largely a diversity of knowledge.
Mathematical models were used more and more in research
laboratories, such as A.T.T. They embodied design methodologies but
still required experiments to be conducted in order to establish them.
Persuasion Industrial laboratories had to convince high calibre scientists to join
them.
Industrial laboratories had to convince the top managers of the firm
they served that it was worth investing in them.
Industrial laboratories were presented as the organisation that
outperformed individual inventors.
272
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A/ Attentiveness
By design, industrial laboratories were expected to be attentive to inventions occurring
outside of the firm that had established them. Their role was first to pre-empt competitive
threats in order to avoid creating competitive advantages. Mapping the technological
territory of a firm and taking multiple patents to occupy it, was a strategy common to A.T.T.
and G.E.
In the 1910’s, the success of this approach is best illustrated by the vacuum tube or ‘audion’.
A former employee of A.T.T., who was now acting as a consultant for the company,
convinced Jewett, who later became chief engineer, to look at the audion triode of De
Forest, an independent inventor. Together with Arnold, another A.T.T. researcher, Jewett
recognised that this might lead to creating a valuable repeater. Arnold therefore advised
A.T.T. to buy De Forrest’s patent. Arnold had to demonstrate that the audion could amplify
without gas in its envelope space to convince the patent department. A.T.T. ended up
buying the De Forrest patent for $ 50,000 in the summer 1913. This vacuum tube, further
refined by A.T.T. scientists and engineers, became the cornerstone of the company’s
success.
One element of importance was the ability of Arnold and Jewett to foresee the future value
of the patent for the industry. De Forrest, as an independent inventor, was not so close to
the needs of the business and did not anticipate the wide applications of his discovery.
Arnold and Jewett, on the contrary, had close relationships with the engineering activities
and the manufacturing entities of the business (Reich, 1985). They were attentive to the
business needs.
Carty from A.T.T. claimed that ‘these laboratories are (…) organised on a strictly business basis,
and the work conducted in them is directed to no other purpose than improving and extending and
conducting in a more economical manner the service which we render to the public‘ (Reich, 1985).
In such an environment, researchers progressed along pre-conceived directions, as opposed
to revolutionary ones (Reich, 1985). Their management had to foresee the results in order
to gain commitment for projects. They believed that revolutionary discoveries could only be
273
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the outcome of unexpected situations which did not really cease to occur even though the
promoters of research emphasised the routine nature of the inventive process.
This should not be interpreted as a sign that industrial laboratories were to serve
manufacturing activities on the contrary. Their role was to serve the coming business
needs 188, not to solve the pressing problems discovered on the shop floor. Regarding the
location of the research laboratory, the benefit of a detachment from production issues was
often expressed. Mees, who directed research efforts at Eastman Kodak, suggested that it is
a ‘great mistake to allow the central research laboratory of an industry to get swamped by plant
service (…). I think it is better for the laboratory to be rather divorced from the plant and not to
have much responsibility for manufacturing, so that the factory will have its own laboratories and
will solve its own problems‘ (1935).
Industrial laboratories were not only supposed to be attentive to inventions outside of the
firm and the needs of the business, they were also expected to be attentive to scientific
development as well. The scientific and technical library of A.T.T. industrial laboratory was
established in 1913. In 1914, it had one librarian and six assistants. Its size increased over
the years. Bibliographies were prepared, foreign articles were translated on an ongoing basis
in order to maintain contact with scientific and inventive activities taking place outside of the
business.
After Jewett took the leadership of the A.T.T. laboratory, also called the Bell laboratory, the
spectrum of activities was somehow broadened. In 1924, the purpose of research was
described as follows: ‘(t)he member of the research Department work constantly in scientific
areas which in some way have something to do with electrical communication and accumulate a
store of information on which future decisions can be based… By predicting problems and supplying
answers the research and development staff functions as an intelligence facility which basically
studies the future and supplies the operational and service arms of the firm with accurate
188
Sprague de Camp described the work in laboratories: ‘work was often done under high pressure. The
employee-inventor was expected to direct his efforts along lines in accord with the company’s commercial
policies and not to spend time fooling around with any interesting idea that appealed to him‘ (Noble, 1977).
274
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

information in the technical and industrial areas which they cover. In this way the future objectives
can be achieved much more easily and economically than otherwise‘ (Eckert & Schubert, 1986).
Jewett, who was familiar with development in physics, believed it would be necessary: ‘to
employ skilled physicists who are familiar with the recent advances in molecular physics and who
are capable of appreciating such further advances as are continually being made‘ (Reich, 1985).
The weekly colloquium of Bell laboratories included prominent physicists, who presented
the current status of scientific research: Sommerfeld in 1923 on the structure of atoms,
Rutheford in 1924 on the atomic nucleus, Schrodinger in 1927 on wave mechanics, Wigner
in 1932 on quantum mechanics and Paul Ewald in 1936 on Crystal growth and ordering 189
(Eckert & Schubert, 1986).
Industrial laboratories were attentive to the latest development in physics that had occurred
at the end of the 19th century and at the start of the 20th century. This new scientific
conception of our world brought ideas that were readily exploitable by industrial
laboratories. It brought new phenomena, such as X-ray, radioactivity and electrons, that
were little by little harnessed by scientists to deliver practical purposes. It brought new
experimental apparatus that allowed observing, measuring and analysing natural phenomena
but, also, artefacts produced by human beings. By being attentive to the recent
developments in physics, the staff working in industrial laboratories could progress their
work 190. At the same time, it became more and more common for industrial laboratories to
contribute to basic science. Davisson, from A.T.T., received a Nobel Prize in the late 1930’s
for his discovery, ten years before, that electrons are diffracted by crystal like waves.
189
The great depression also acted as a great incentive for scientists in A.T.T. to further their knowledge. The
week was reduced from five and a half days to four days. Most scientists used this free time to organise
themselves into self-study groups and update their knowledge. Internal competition between scientists led to a
gain of knowledge for the laboratory (Eckert & Schubert, 1986).
190
See supra for the impact on Midgley’s discovery of this new conception of matter by Niels Bohr.
275
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

B/ Experimentation
The ‘Soft Hand’ of management contributed to the success of the firms that had established
industrial laboratories and those same pioneers started to paint a glorifying and misleading
picture of how Experimentation was conducted within their walls. It revolved around the
concept of teamwork. Teamwork was presented as the distinctive and powerful feature of
research activities conducted in research laboratories. Jewett from A.T.T. talked of
‘cooperative effort under control’ and, at G.E., the expression ‘synthetic genii‘ was coined.
It was a misleading picture. In fact, teams had become necessary to plan, realise and
interpret complex experiments. One person could not have all the knowledge and skills
necessary to perform such activities. Craft, from the Bell Laboratories, described ‘(p)erhaps
the outstanding characteristic of this organisation, the one that sets it apart a little from others, is its
conduct of research and development by a group method of attack (…) the result is the necessity
of a high degree of speciali(s)ation. So in all of these technical departments we have specialists,
chemists, metallurgists, physicists, engineers, statisticians, mathematicians, men who are trained and
skilled in their particular branches of science and engineering. Their activities are so coordinated by
means of this organi(s)ation, that their best brains can be brought to bear upon any specific
problems‘ (Noble 1977).
One of the most valuable combinations that industrial laboratories were trying to favour
was the one between theorists and experimentalists: ‘(a)dministrators took advantage of the
complementary capabilities of the researchers, sometimes setting theorists and experimentalists,
abstract thinkers and ’nuts and bolts‘ people working together. The power of such a team to find
solutions usually surpasses the sum of the power of the individuals taken separately‘ (Reich 1985).
Before the Second World War, a large influx of scientists, leaving Germany, arrived in
America. Most of them came from a tradition that emphasised theory over experiments.
The American practice of science was more focused on practical issues and experiments.
The collaboration of the two different scientific traditions proved to be prolific.
The collaboration between theorists and experimentalists took on a new appearance during
the early years of the 20th century. In industrial laboratories such as A.T.T., progress
276
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

appeared more and more in the form of the development of mathematical models but
experiments did not disappear, far from it. Mathematics were indeed more and more used
to describe a particular type of technology and to develop what can be described as ‘design
methodologies‘, expressed as formulas, charts and graphs. However, creating such models
required simplifications and experiments were needed to validate and identify their limits.
Theoretical and experimental work progressed alongside.
Hamberg (1963) summarised this evolution as an unavoidable development and not as a
winning formula: ‘(t)he rationale behind the group or ‘team approach‘ to research is deceptively
simple and clear: scientific and technical knowledge has grown to such dimensions that it is now
impossible to master all relevant fields, and specialisation has therefore become unavoidable. But
specialisation inevitably leads to myopia on the part of the specialist, whose narrow and insular
knowledge and capabilities render him increasingly unable to tap the various fields of knowledge
needed to produce modern, complicated scientific discoveries and inventions. Team research is the
only way out of this dilemma.’
C / Persuasion
During the pioneering years of industrial laboratories, administrators of laboratories needed
to persuade high calibre scientists to join their organisations, and decision makers to invest
in them. The image of the teams of scientists working smoothly together was one way of
self-fashioning 191 their efforts that was part of a more systematic approach to Persuasion.
The first industrial laboratories had indeed difficulties to recruit good scientists. Working
for an industrial laboratory offered the opportunity to escape some of university duties such
as teaching. It also offered better salaries than universities. It was, however, regarded as a
degenerated version of ’Pure Science‘. Carty, from A.T.T., and Whitney, from G.E., called for
more graduates to be provided by universities. For example, Carty claimed ‘(t)he time has
come when our technical schools must supply in largely increasing numbers men thoroughly
grounded in scientific method of investigation of the work of industrial research‘ (Noble, 1977). In
191
‘Self-fashioning’, a term introduced by Stephen Greenblatt (1980), to describe the process of constructing
one's identity and public persona according to a set of socially acceptable standards.
277
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A.T.T., Carty and Jewett were involved in recruiting high calibre scientists. Their
relationship with Millikan at the University of Chicago was instrumental. Cornell University,
the University of Michigan and the University of Wisconsin also provided recruits.
Over time, to attract scientists, corporate research directors had to adopt liberal
publication policies and gave their best researchers a great deal of latitude in choosing
problems to work on. It was very much the case in G.E., from the start of the laboratory. It
became the case in A.T.T. over the years, especially during the 1920’s. As Jewett replaced
Carty as the head of the laboratory, he allowed researchers to publish, but under strict
control. Publishing appeared as a way of demonstrating the value of industrial laboratories.
In both laboratories, the content of publications remained, however, heavily controlled
(Reich, 1985).
In 1926, 600 people were working in the Bell Laboratory and 90 graduates were recruited
that same year (Eckert and Schubert, 1986). Over the years, the universities increased the
number of scientists they trained.
At the same time, corporate research directors needed to persuade the management of the
company of the value of their work. In G.E., this was done mainly through an
entrepreneurial approach of solving problems that would be useful to other departments in
the firm. Results led to confidence. In A.T.T., the situation was somehow easier. Because
A.T.T. was dependent on a narrower set of technologies, it had no option other than to
invest in research. It was well understood by the management of the company (Reich, 1985).
A.T.T. had to focus on technical challenges such as amplifying or repeating telephone signals.
Vail announced the intent to develop an advantage in long distance service or ’universal
service‘. Making a coast to coast connection became the major goal of A.T.T. Vail announced
this ambition in 1909 and promised it would be delivered by the time the Panama Canal was
opened. One of the aims behind this was to convince the American government that a
monopoly would be the best place to deliver such daring innovation (Mueller, 1997). Vail
made numerous mentions of research in his public speech [Persuasion]. He defended the
fact that large businesses, like A.T.T., had an advantage in innovation and that the monopoly
278
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

the company enjoyed could be defended on this basis. A.T.T. had to appear as a publicly
responsible company.
After coast to coast communication and transatlantic communication were launched, the
role of science in A.T.T. was well established.
Administrators of industrial laboratories joined their efforts in order to promote the pursuit
of research activities. In 1916, the National Research council was established in view of the
coming war. It included Whitney, from G.E., and Carty, from A.T.T. After the war, it aimed
at fostering collaboration between governmental, industrial and other research
organisations. It turned out to be ‘an unprecedented vehicle for coordinating the resources of the
nation to meet the needs of industry‘ (Noble, 1977). It served as a platform to promote
industrial laboratories and persuade politicians, businessmen and all decision-makers of their
value. The army metaphor was amply used by the protagonists. Pritchett, a highly regarded
scientist, called for organisation: ‘(t)he research men of a nation are not isolated individuals but
an organised and cooperating army’ (Noble, 1977).
People involved in industrial research declared victory over independent inventors. It was
not the result of a conspiracy but a conscious self-fashioning of their activities. Jewett
declared: ‘(t)he industry has outgrown its ability to progress wholly on the basis of random
invention‘ (Reich, 1985). Craft described how a routine approach building on the best
available brains could now lead to invention: ‘(w)hen a problem is put up to the Labs for
solution, it is divided into its elements and each element is assigned to that group of specialists who
know the most about that particular field but they all cooperate and make their contribution to the
solution of the problem as a whole‘ (Noble, 1977).
It led Schumpeter to declare the fall of the entrepreneurs he had admired and to write that
‘innovation is being reduced to routine. Technological progress is increasingly becoming the business
of teams of trained specialists who turn out what is required and make it work in predictable ways.
The romance of earlier commercial adventure is rapidly wearing away‘ (Schumpeter, 1954).
279
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In 1885, only 12% of patents were issued to corporations, the independent inventors had
the lion’s share of patents. In 1950, three-quarters of them were assigned to corporations.
During the 19th century, patents stimulated and protected individuals who could conduct
inventive activities. At the turn of the 20th century, corporations were asking the inventor to
abandon his right in exchange for security. They built a ‘monopoly of monopolies‘ (Noble,
1977), that they used to harass their competitors 192. The mounting legal fees, the anxiety
associated with legal cases and the formalism brought by patent reforms in 1900 and 1929
acted as a deterrent to individual inventors who, more and more, exchanged freedom for
security of work in the large corporations like A.T.T. As part of their contract, they were
expected to assign their inventions to their employers and a clause extended this obligation
up to one year after the termination of their employment contract. The individual inventor
was not so much outperformed but asphyxiated by the large corporations.
Looking at patents assigned to individuals, as opposed to corporations, is therefore
misleading. Grosvernor (Hamberg, 1963) published a study on major inventions made
between 1889 and 1929 where it appeared that only twelve out of the 72 inventions studied
came from a corporate research laboratory. Another study conducted by Jewkes looked at
61 inventions from the 20th century (two thirds of them made after 1930). Twelve of those
inventions, such as nylon, the transistor or Freon, could be attributed to the laboratories of
large corporations, while 33 inventions, such as air-conditioning, bakelite, cellophane or the
jet engine, could be attributed to independent inventors (Hamberg, 1963).
Proclaiming the victory of industrial laboratories served to promote them but even Jewett
recognised that independent inventors could still challenge a well-established company. ‘It is
inevitable that the great bulk of what you might call the run-of-the-mill patents in any industry like
ours will inevitably come from your own people (…). I think it is equally the case that those few
fundamental patents, the things which really mark big change in the art, are more likely to come
from outside than from the inside (…). There are certain sectors where the independent inventor
192
An A.T.T. patent lawyer explained: ‘it appears to me that the policy of bringing suit for infringement on
apparatus patent is an excellence one because it keeps the concerns which attempt opposition in a nervous and
excited condition since they never know where the next attack may be made, and since it keep them all the time
changing their machines and causes them ultimately, in order that they might not be sued, to adopt inefficient
forms of apparatus‘ (Noble 1977).
280
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

cannot operate (…). There are certain sectors where (…) the chances are ten to one that the
fundamental ideas are going to come from outside the big laboratories simply because of the nature
of things‘ (Hughes, 2004).
Section II- The celebration of industrial laboratories in the
post-war period
Pioneers of industrial laboratories acted as masters of Persuasion and did a lot to promote
this new organisational form. However, they did it by creating a misleading picture of reality.
While the Second World War was approaching, A.T.T. industrial laboratory had decided to
make a significant investment in basic research, hoping to enhance once again their
technological advance. The intent was to explore what was going to be called ‘solid state
physics’. In 1936, Marvin Kelly, who, at the time, directed the research laboratory, recruited
William Shockley, a young physicist from California who had graduated from M.I.T.
However, the search for new telecommunication technologies in solid state physics got
interrupted as the war was approaching.
The war period was a prolific one for scientific discoveries and inventive activities.
Inventions such as the radar, ethyl, penicillin and computers were all discovered or
developed during this period. The most emblematic product of research was the atomic
bomb, developed as part of the Manathan project with a budget superior to the one of the
Department of Defence in 1944 and 1945.
To organise the ‘war of the physicists’, Vannevar Bush, an electrical engineer, headed the
Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). He had direct access to the
American President and was able to tap into the scientific and technological personnel of
private businesses for the war effort. Through the OSRD, the government supported the
conduct of military research by investing in laboratories attached to universities such as
MIT, University of California, Berkeley, Caltech and others. Part of the research was also
conducted in a small number of business laboratories such as A.T.T., Kodak, DuPont, RCA,
G.E. Money went to an elite group that was entitled, in most cases, to retain the ownership
281
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

of the result federal investment through patents (Eckert & Schubert, 1986). The Bell
laboratories were heavily involved in radar work, and military research became its main
focus 193.
Schockley started to work in radar research and antisubmarine warfare but moved to the
Anti-Submarine Warfare Operation Group where his analytical skills could be put to good
use (Riordan & Hoddeson, 1997).
After the war, scientists were regarded as the saviours of the nation. People believed that
technology had been a decisive factor in the American victory. Science was celebrated and
started to be perceived as a sort of universal cure to human and, more specifically,
American problems.
Vannevar Bush developed a 40 pages report for the President Truman in 1945 in which he
promoted the idea that basic science should flourish without being constrained by practical
matters. According to him, ‘(a) nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific
knowledge will be slow in its industrial progress and weak in its competitive position in world trade,
regardless of its mechanical skills‘ (Bush, 1945). He defended the linear model by which
science would fuel technological developments and consequently economic activities: ‘(n)ew
products, new industries and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of
nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purpose. This essential, new knowledge
can only be obtained through basic scientific research‘ (Bush, 1945). He also claimed that
government should support basic science, but should not control the performance of
research activities. It was to be left to universities. Businesses had already emerged out of
the war as unchallenged technological leaders, they now seized the ideas of Bush and a
unique opportunity to maintain their advance while, in other countries, reconstruction was
the central priority. No one questioned the linear model of Vannevar Bush.
193
‘In 1939 the total amount of government contract was approximately $100,000 or 1% of the total Bell Labs
expenditures. In 1944 this sum had risen to $56 million and constitutes 81% of the research expenditures. The
technical staff increased tenfold between 1940 and 1943. The work week increased on the average to 66 hours,
and a 90-hour work week was not unusual. Vacation time was limited to two days per year‘ (Eckert & Schubert,
1986).
282
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

American R&D expenditures were multiplied by more than three between 1945 and 1955.
Industry financed R&D, which represented 6% of total R&D expenditure in 1945, and was
nearly multiplied by nine in ten years (Mowery & Rosenberg, 1989). Funding for basic
research went from $441 million in 1953 to $3,053 million in 1967 (Mowery & Rosenberg,
1989). Policy makers were convinced that science was paramount to ensure national
security. During the Cold War period, large technology-based companies benefited from
these investments. They were able to fuel some of their own progress thanks to federal
funds. For instance, the IBM experience with time sharing and real-time data processing was
supported by the Government. The NASA, a public agency also stimulated innovation in
microelectronics (Rosenbloom & Kantrow, 1982). In 1952, a survey, conducted by the U.S.
Bureau of Labour Statistics in cooperation with the Department of Defence, estimated that
two thirds of the Nation’s R&D expenditures were spent in the private industry while being
funded by the government (Cozzens in Krige & Pestre, 2003).
Rosenbloom and Kantrow (1982) described the development of basic science at the
corporate level: ‘World War II changed all this, as industrial leaders participated in or at least
observed, dramatic innovations in weapons and defence systems founded on scientific discovery By
the end of the decade after the war, the large technology based corporation still maintained
substantial developments and engineering departments as part of their operating units but had
placed a new corporate facility at the top of the technical hierarchy – one dedicated to research,
staffed mainly by Ph.D. scientists and set apart geographically.’ They add: ‘from 1954 and 1963
corporate spending for research grew at a compound rate of 7.4% annually in constant dollars .‘
Firms that already had research laboratories conducting basic science intensified their efforts
and investments. Others joined the bandwagon. IBM hired an astronomer to lead its
research effort, while Ford invested in a ‘real research department‘ (Hounshell, 1996).
During this period, Bell laboratories remained the largest corporate R&D laboratory with
2000 scientists and engineers and 5700 people overall (Carlson in Krige &Pestre, 2003).
Kelly announced a new organisation with three new groups in the physics department
dedicated to basic research: Physical Electronics, Electron Dynamics and Solid State Physics
headed by Schockley and Morgan, a chemist (Riordan and Hoddeson, 1997).
283
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

In this new department, two researchers named Brattain and Bardeen discovered the
amplifying capabilities of semiconductor devices. Schockley proposed some refinement to
the semiconductor. The invention was announced in 1948 by the Bell laboratories under the
name ‘transistor’. Work was pursued during the following years. The three of them received
a Nobel Prize in 1954 for their discovery.
Bell laboratory’s discovery of the transistor was presented as one of the fruits of the linear
model. The ongoing focus on practical needs of the business for more than 50 years was
barely mentioned; the discovery solely appeared as a blessed fruit of science. It stimulated
other companies to re-enforce their investment in science (Hounsell, 1996).
Laboratories tried to recreate the sense of urgency of the war period to achieve success.
The military terminology was largely popular. At the same time, laboratories were giving
more and more freedom to their physicists and other researchers in directing their work.
This passion for basic research changed the nature of industrial laboratories and the regime
of invention that had been pioneered before the war was transformed. The ‘Soft Hand’ lost
its grip on corporate research laboratories and a sort of myopia appeared. Persuasion was
no more an issue, everyone believed that ‘big science’ was going to bring major results.
Expensive experiments were performed with the support of federal investments and,
sometimes, required the collaboration of many scientists. The scientists were attentive to
basic research issues and lost sight of practical concerns of the business 194. Military problems
became a core focus of research activities. Technical performance was important whereas
market focus was obviously secondary 195.
194
The Bell laboratory decided to support basic research in astrophysics. The practical intent existed and was to
enhance satellite transmission. It led to the observation of the background radiation and confirmed the Big Bang
theory.
195
‘Forman has noted, the electronics industry in particular came to depend on the military for its R&D
funding. In 1960, for instance the federal government (almost exclusively the military) paid for 70% of the R&D
conducted by the electronics industry (…). With the military funding much of its research, the electronics
industry became increasingly conservative about the way in which it spent its own money in research. Most
historians and electronics industry analysts now agree that the United State ceased to be the leader in consumer
electronics in part because of its preoccupation with military electronics which lead companies to focus
attention on performance objectives rather than market objectives‘ (Hounshell, 1996).
284
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

This ‘icarian’ regime of invention ceased to be virtuous. Understanding problems at the
frontiers of science and technology and developing mathematical models to create design
methodologies had proved useful in the past, yet the ‘Pure Science’ ideology was taking
companies too far away from their practical concerns.
Steele observed the evolution of research activities over the years. In 1988, he looked back
at the post-war period and reflected on the ivory towers that were being built: ‘(m)anagerial
doctrines for R&D called for isolation from the exigencies of operations; it asserted the need to
provide continuity of support and an environment conductive to creative work. Most new laboratory
facilities were deliberately located at sites physically separated from operations. This physical
separation was exacerbated by the parallel physical dispersal of manufacturing facilities. This
combination of perceptual and physical inevitably affected the process of selecting programmes and
objectives. On the one hand, increased weight was placed on the technical or scientific significance
of the work when determining whether or not to undertake it. On the other hand, more formal and
systematic mechanisms had to be established to maintain interactions with far-flung operations‘
(Steele, 1988).
In his book ‘The organisation man‘, William Whyte mentioned the investigation of Francis
Bello from the magazine Fortune. Bello had asked a number of people from well-placed
institutions to name the most promising scientists under the age of 40. The institutions
where the enquiry was conducted included the Office of Naval Research and the Atomic
Energy Commission, which were definitely the most relevant institutions to ask such
questions. Amongst the 225 names obtained, only four were working in an industrial
laboratory. Surprised by this outcome, Bello asked the same question to directors of leading
research laboratories and university scientists but only 35 names were obtained 196. Bello
concluded: ‘(m)ost industrial scientists don’t know one another, nor are they known by anybody
else‘ (Whyte, 1957).
Freedom for scientists led somehow to isolation. In some companies, they were allowed to
spend 5% to 10% of their time, resource and budget on items they could freely choose.
‘Practically all who are now Ph.D.’s want to be told what to do. They seem to be scared to death to
196
G.E. and Bell Laboratories had the best results out of all the laboratories.
285
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

think up problems on their own‘ (Whyte, 1957) : some research directors discovered that they
tended not to take advantage of this possibility, and preferred to be told what to do.
Section III- New collective arrangements on the rise
After a period of passion for science, research laboratories went through years of doubts
that they eventually overcame. At the Bell laboratories, the transistor appeared as a ‘natural
development‘ for a company interested in developing technical novelties to support
communications. However, the transistor had applications well beyond telecommunications.
A.T.T. and other companies with an ethos of basic research pursued the work for military
applications. Other companies using regimes of invention different from the research
laboratory explored applications. They included product development teams in specialised
firms such as Texas Instruments and networks of inventors from the Silicon Valley.
Different reasons can explain why A.T.T. did not make the most of the transistor:
• The monopoly it had in the telecommunication sector put the company in a unique
situation. An antitrust case in 1949 set up barriers to A.T.T. entry in non-telephone
business and obliged the firm to license its patents. Therefore, the management
attention to alternative applications of the semi-conductor was quasi nil;
• A.T.T might have taken the conscious decision to disseminate its knowledge and
know-how about semi-conductors hoping that others would take it to a stage where
it could be beneficial to A.T.T. Jack Morton, an A.T.T. Vice president said, in 1968:
‘we realised that if this thing [the transistor] was as big as we thought, we couldn’t keep it
to ourselves and we couldn’t make all the technical contributions. It was to our interest to
spread it around. If you cast your bread on the water, sometimes it comes back angel food
cake‘ (Langlois, 2002). This declaration could be a post rationalisation of history or a
real conscious decision;
• The way research was conducted within Bell laboratories tended to seclude
scientists from contacts with customers. It was highly functional but did not favour
an entrepreneurial attitude related to market opportunities;
286
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

• The application of the transistor to the A.T.T. business took time, as the technology
was not reliable from the start, and as telecommunication systems could not be
changed overnight. Other applications outside of this industry offered more
immediate learning opportunities.
As soon as A.T.T. announced the discovery of the transistor and applied its licensing policy,
knowledge started to spill over the walls of the company for the benefit of companies which
were attentive to the potential of such an invention.
Teal, who was working for Bell laboratories, applied for a job in a Dallas based company:
Texas Instruments. It meant an opportunity for him to run a research laboratory. Teal
developed the silicon transistor there while other companies were still working with
Germanium. Texas Instruments had military contracts for transistors that were cancelled
with the end of the Korean War, in 1954 and it also had a niche market for the transistor:
hearing aids. The management of Texas Instruments wanted to develop a civilian application
of the transistor that could offer the company visibility on the market. They tried to
persuade radio manufacturers to buy into their idea, but without success. They pursued the
venture on their own and decided to develop a small radio, using low-cost Germanium
transistor: the Regency TR1 radio. The product was successful but not profitable as it was
underpriced. It brought the semiconductor to the attention of the public. It also turned
Texas Instruments into a transistor supplier for radio manufacturers, such as Motorola or
RCA, and, later, for the main computer manufacturer in America, IBM (Riordan &
Hoddeson, 1997).
A company like Texas Instruments can be regarded as a specialised manufacturer where
inventive activities are performed by development teams. It had adopted a regime of
invention different from the one used by companies like A.T.T. On the Attentiveness side of
the A-E-P, the management of the company was dedicated to the exploitation of the market
opportunities offered by semi-conductors (Langlois, 2002). From an Experimentation
perspective, developing low cost semi-conductors was different in nature to inventing the
transistor. It was essentially an engineering work focused on creating defect free and reliable
production capacity (Riordan & Hoddeson, 1997). From a Persuasion perspective,
demonstrating the possibility of creating an inexpensive and simple product such as a radio
287
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

proved to be a winning strategy. Companies like Intel followed later a similar path of
specialised manufacturer which did not have to make major investments in basic research
but who combined rigorous engineering approaches with a market orientation. Intel,
however, was the fruit of another regime of invention, the Silicon Valley, which brings us
back to Schockley from the Bell laboratories.
Schockley was disappointed by the lack of attention given by A.T.T. management to the
application of semi-conductors. He moved back to California to found Schockley
Semiconductor Laboratories in 1956. He was encouraged by Terman, the engineering dean
of Stanford, who was always eager to create a local environment where his graduates could
find jobs 197. Due to Shockley’s ubiquitous management style, eight of his team members,
including Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, left him to create Fairchild semiconductor. By
1961, they had created integrated circuits 198 (Riordan & Hoddeson, 1997). Noyce and his
colleagues rejected the East coast managerial culture. Fairchild became the source of many
new start-up firms, which contributed to creating what is now known as the Silicon Valley.
Spin-offs multiplied and carried with them this new way of doing business and a regime of
invention different from the research laboratories’ one. Informal investors, willing to invest
in electronic firms were present in the region. Their number grew over the years. Demand
for computers supplanted governmental demand for semiconductors (Langlois, 2002). In
1968, Noyce and Moore founded Intel with Andy Grove to create a new niche in the semi-
conductor business. This constant spin-off process created a network of inventors and
scientists who accumulated knowledge and carried it with them.
The regime of invention in the Silicon Valley was somehow illustrated by Steve Wozniack in
a recollection of the atmosphere in California at the time he was working on the Apple
computer: ‘(o)ur club in the Silicon Valley, the Homebrew Computer Club, was among the first of
its kind. It was in early 1975, and a lot of tech-type people would gather and trade integrated
circuits back and forth. You could have called it Chips and Dips (...). The theme of the club was
197
Hewlett Packard and Varian Associates Inc. were already established in the region and active in the
electronic business. Other large companies, like Raytheon or IBM, had also established in the region, following
efforts of Terman.
198
It is a miniaturized electronic circuit consisting mainly of semiconductor devices, as well as passive
components.
288
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

‘Give to help others.’ Each session began with a ‘mapping period,’ when people would get up one by
one and speak about some item of interest, a rumour, and have a discussion. Somebody would say,
‘I've got a new part,’ or somebody else would say he had some new data or ask if anybody had a
certain kind of teletype. During the ‘random access period’ that followed, you would wander outside
and find people trading devices or information and helping each other (…). The Apple I and II were
designed strictly on a hobby, for-fun basis, not to be a product for a company. They were meant to
bring down to the club and put on the table during the random access period and demonstrate:
Look at this, it uses very few chips. It's got a video screen. You can type stuff on it. Personal
computer keyboards and video screens were not well established then. There was a lot of showing
off to other members of the club. Schematics of the Apple I were passed around freely, and I'd even
go over to people's houses and help them build their own‘ (Wozniack, 1984).
We saw inventors debating rumours (Attentiveness), promoting their ideas (Persuasion) and
tinkering with their prototypes in front of their peers (Experimentation).
The Silicon Valley, as a regime of invention, appears as a network of individuals who job-
hopped between firms. They were attentive to both technical and market opportunities
which could make best use of their skills. They experimented by tinkering with their
electronic circuit. They continuously tried to persuade others: venture capitalists,
colleagues, potential beneficiaries and users of their ideas and work. They did not investigate
scientific problems but simply combined and re-combined electronic components, hoping to
bump into a star component or products.
In the meantime, research laboratories had to re-invent themselves. Hounshell (1996)
described the disappointment of the management of the firm that had invested in basic
science: ‘(b)y the late 1960s, however, executives in many of these firms had lost faith in Bush’s
linear model. They noted that few, if any, blockbuster products had emerged from their basic
research programmes. Although G.E. had produced some exotic things in its laboratory, the
company had not earned much measurable return on its investment in academic-style research.
DuPont had no new nylons. Kodak had no radically new system of photography. RCA had lost many
opportunities and one of it Princeton lab’s products had failed to gain management support.
Managers and executives at IBM began to question whether I had been wise to separate research
289
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

from development‘. Disappointment with the results led to a decrease of investment into
basic research. From 1966 to 1972, industrial research spending fell by 20% in aggregate and
constant dollar. 7% of the R&D budget was spent on basic research in the early 60’s, it was
only 3,7% in the mid 70’s (Rosenbloom & Kantrow, 1982).
Corporate research laboratories, however, survived the 20th century by reorientating their
activities towards more practical concerns. Their funding became more and more
dependent on investments made by business units (Edelheit, 2004) who expected practical
and timely developments. Research budgets went through a series of ups and downs often
correlated to the economic and business cycles. At the start of the 21st century, the concept
of open innovation (Chesborough, 2001) emphasised Attentiveness to external scientific and
technical developments as well as market opportunities, a context that would not have
surprised some of the pioneers of the industrial research from the early years of the 20th
century who were adept at the ‘Soft Hand’ approach.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Closing remarks
At the end of the 19th century, inventive activities were perceived as the work of heroic
individuals such as Edison, Bell and a few others. In order to increase their ability to
persuade others when needed, they had fashioned themselves into heroic pioneers capable
of bringing a promising future to reality. They let others believe that they were capable of
foreseeing what this future could be.
At the start of the 20th century, the large corporations in industries dealing with electricity,
telecommunication and chemistry, turned to science as a source of technical advancement
to regain or further their competitive edge. They brought young and talented scientists
within industrial laboratories hoping they would help to absorb valuable external knowledge
and practices. They also rapidly started to create some themselves in close relation with the
needs of the business as they had to demonstrate that they were sound investments.
Leaders of the industrial laboratories needed to attract scientists and to secure their long
term future. They started to promote what they had established: a new means of harnessing
science and business. They announced the end of the independent inventor and claimed that
290
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

teams of scientists operating routinely in industrial laboratories had definitely replaced them.
The First World War gave them the opportunity to develop rhetoric where science was
presented as a source of advantage in an armed conflict. Leaders of the large corporation
who had established such laboratories also appreciated the aura conferred to their firm by
the scientists operating within their walls. They helped to sell products, to persuade
governments that they could be of value for the future of the nation and to demonstrate
virtue when they were often criticised for their monopolistic behaviour.
The discourse about how inventive and scientific activities were conducted within those
firms started to depart from the reality. Magical achievements and basic science performed
in industrial laboratories were much talked about in public. In reality, the use of
mathematical models and the advent of a more predictive science were indeed enriching the
practice of scientists but they were also relying on serendipity and systematic investigations
to answer practical business concerns. Scientific investigations were a possible detour to
address more practical applications and, sometimes, a means of persuading talented
scientists to work for those firms. Such inventive activities were not performed to address
the basic manufacturing issues, as it was often highlighted by leaders of industrial
laboratories, but they were nevertheless supposed to act as a ‘life insurance‘ and a source
for the future of the business.
The Second World War reinforced the belief that science was important for the future of
businesses and of the nation. A passion for science led American firms and the government
to invest in scientific activities often at the expense of practical applications.
This discourse on inventive practices focusing on teams and ignoring the individual has also
influenced the understanding of the phenomenon at play. During the second half of the 20th
century, the analysis of inventive practices departed from the study of individual inventors
and emphasised collective phenomena. The change of perspective of Schumpeter was a
critical event in the study of innovation, a change that most certainly continues to shape our
understanding of innovation today.
291
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The A-E-P triptych, with its focus on human action, helped to understand the division of
labour between the different regimes of invention that played a role in the development,
commercialisation and application of the transistor and of semi-conductor technologies. We
outlined the respective roles of the industrial laboratories of large firms with their scientists,
of the specialised firms with their engineers and of the network of independent inventors
and entrepreneurs. Each of them specialised in different inventive activities complementary
to each other. Within the research laboratory, scientists were both attentive to scientific
development and the needs of their business. They were capable of conducting expensive
experiments that needed a diversity of skills and people. However, leaders within these
firms were not attentive to the potential applications of the transistor. They were focusing
on the needs of their existing business and on the complex, and sometimes difficult,
relationships they had with the government. Engineers at Texas Instruments started by being
attentive to the applications of transistors to consumer product, but ended up being
absorbed by the practical issues and experiments necessary to manufacture inexpensive and
defect free semi-conductors. Some of the inventor-entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley were
tinkering at low costs with electronic components in search of a diversity of applications for
this new technology. They were able to focus their attention on what could be done with it
while benefiting from the progress made by the specialised firms.
The following table summarises the different regime of invention 199 at play here using the A-
E-P triptych. It also characterises the nature of uncertainty those regimes were addressing.
199
A regime of invention has already been defined as a coherent set of inventive practices used by a group of
individuals at a particular point in time and in a given situation. When there are evidences that a regime of
invention can be more than a special case, it will considered as a collective arrangement.
292
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Table 5: the different regimes of invention
Regime I: Regime II: Regime III:
Corporate Research Product development Network of
laboratory, e.g. Bell teams in specialised independent inventor,
laboratory. (late 1930’s- firm, e.g. Texas e.g. Silicon Valley
1950’s) Instrument (1950’s -) (1960’s- )
Uncertainty Uncertainty is related Uncertainty is related Uncertainty is related
to what scientific and to the technical ability to the potential
technological of the firm to produce applications of a
developments can offer and deliver what technology.
in the future. customers are
demanding.
Uncertainty is high as it Uncertainty is less Uncertainty is high
is nearly impossible to significant than for Most of the inventors
foresee the evolutions research laboratories. have different product
of science. Moore’s law shows ideas in mind. Many of
that improvement can them fail, few survive
be expected but the and grow. They do not
means to achieve them necessarily compete
are not fully clear. amongst themselves as
they look to bring their
own ideas to the
market.
Attentiveness Inventors (scientists) Inventors (engineers) Inventors
are attentive to the are attentive to (independents,
most advanced internal technical entrepreneurs) are
scientific developments issues, such as low cost attentive to the market
and defects production opportunities that can
make best use of their
skills
They are attentive to They are attentive to They are attentive to
the business needs of the customer and the technical
the firm they serve market needs and the developments that
which often compete technical developments occur around them
in very competitive specific to their
markets activities
Experimentation Inventors (scientists) Inventors (engineers) Inventors (independent
work in teams in order focus on practical, inventors,
to address the internal technical entrepreneurs)
increasing challenge such as the experiment by
specialisation in ability to deliver defect tinkering with their
scientific knowledge free products electronic circuits
and activities
Expensive experiments They also validate and They do not
can be conducted to test future production investigate scientific
understand a scientific equipment problems but simply
293
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

phenomenon combine and re-
combine electronic
components, hoping to
bump into a star
component or
products
Science can guide They test their market
practice but luck and ideas by sharing them
systematic search can with potential
still play a role investors
Persuasion Inventors (scientists) Inventors (engineers) Inventors (independent
need to persuade the need to persuade inventors,
business unit managers customers that they entrepreneurs) need
and key people that can deliver the to persuade others:
they can be of good technical performance venture capitalists,
use to them that they promise to colleagues, potential
them users of the value of
their ideas and work.
In this example, the different regimes of invention encountered, enabled individuals to
perform specific inventive activities. They were complementary to each other and
uncertainty appears to play a discerning role in this division of labour.
Uncertainty, here, is not to be understood as a ‘black and white’ concept. There are
different levels of uncertainty. Some discoveries are at a hand’s reach whether it is
suspected or not; others are simply too distant.
Uncertainty related to the exploration of specific fields of science for inventive purposes can
be strong, especially if the intention is to find out something that could have a predictive
power for practical applications. The research laboratories were well suited to addressing
such types of uncertainty with high Experimentation costs.
Uncertainty related to the applications of a new generic technology can also be strong, a
multiplicity of applications might exist but spotting the ones with the most promising cost-
benefit ratio can be arduous. Networks of inventors who gathered together entrepreneurs
with technical skills are well suited to addressing such degree of uncertainty with low
Experimentation costs.
294
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Uncertainty related to the ongoing improvement of the technical performance of new
technology can be weaker. Indeed, the regular technical progress illustrated by a law like
Moore’s law 200 demonstrates that some problems simply need time and money to be solved.
This does not mean that the industry incumbent will always win but that discoveries and
progress will be made. The product development teams in specialised firms, staffed with
engineers, are well suited to address such degree of uncertainty.
The following table summarises the domains of application of the different collective
arrangements studied in the present chapter.
Figure 4: taxonomy of collective arrangement (20th century)
The collective arrangements encountered in this chapter have altogether enabled inventors
to progress. Beyond the division of labour, a form of irreversibility appears to be at work
with the adoption of specific collective arrangements by firms. The adoption of a specific
collective arrangement at a certain moment in time can prevent the adoption of another
collective arrangement later in time. By channelling the Attentiveness of inventors operating
200
In 1965, for a special issue of the journal Electronics, Moore was asked to predict developments over the
next decade. In reviewing past increases in the number of transistors per silicon chip, Moore formulated what
became known as Moore’s law: The number of transistors per silicon chip doubles each year. In 1975, as the
rate of growth began to slow, Moore revised his time frame to two years. His revised law was a bit pessimistic;
over roughly 40 years from 1961, the number of transistors doubled approximately every 18 months (Source:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/705841/Gordon-E-Moore)
295
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

within their walls, firms and specific collective arrangements might prevent the development
of certain courses of action.
Finally, research laboratories, development teams within specialised firms and networks of
inventors appear as collective arrangements that are created through human action but that
can also interfere with human actions. This third chapter showed how the A-E-P triptych
and the concept of regimes of invention contributes to explaining some of the historical
transformations that occurred within the economy throughout the 20th century and that it
can offer a promising perspective for the understanding of the nature and behaviour of
firms, a perspective compatible with both the principle of methodological individualism and
uncertainty.
296
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Taking stock, looking ahead
Mantzavinos, North & Shariq suggested to economists and other social scientists a
demanding task: ‘The greatest challenge for the social sciences is to explain change—or more
specifically, social, political, economic, and organisational change. The starting point must be an
account of human learning, which is the fundamental prerequisite for explaining such change’
(Mantzavinos, North & Shariq, 2004).
The present dissertation contributes to this research agenda by looking at how some agents
act individually and collectively before uncertainty, a sound basis for understanding human
learning. It focuses on inventive activities and more specifically on the abilities of inventors
that help them to progress when knowledge is partial and ignorance is shared. This has been
performed thanks to the investigation of career inventors who have met success on a
recurring basis and of the collective arrangements they used over about two hundred years.
More specifically, a triptych of three abilities (the A-E-P triptych) has been studied:
‐ Attentiveness: an inventor is attentive to the information, knowledge and insight that
could lead him to success;
‐ Experimentation: an inventor experiments in order to create new, useful
information, knowledge and insight;
‐ Persuasion: an inventor persuades others (potential investors, potential users…) of
the value of his work.
This historical investigation has provided a consistent, well-established and contextualised
series of facts that help to understand what has changed over time and what has remained
constant. It is now possible to move from the empirical evidence to offer a set of
conclusions. This will reveal a consistent set of individual abilities and practices that have
been used throughout history; it will also present the modality of collective actions of
inventors building on those individual abilities.
297
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

This concluding section is organised around three parts. First, while the study of career
inventors throughout this dissertation demonstrates the role and importance of the A-E-P
triptych before uncertainty, it also helps to identify and qualify some of the tactics,
strategies, traits and situations used by inventors. Second, using the notion of the regime of
invention structured around the A-E-P triptych, a group of collective arrangements
dedicated to inventive activities is analysed and a typology is proposed. This reveals the
modalities of collective actions for inventors who face different degrees of uncertainty. The
notion of collective arrangements helps to move beyond the classic opposition between
markets and firms and proposes to analyse more specific organisational forms such as
networks, inventive hierarchies, research laboratories and product development teams.
Third, further investigations related to Attentiveness and Persuasion are suggested. This
concluding section moves from confirming the validity of the model studied in this work to
outlining further discoveries made as part of this investigation. It ends with speculative and
exciting perspectives for the future.
A/ The abilities of career inventors
The study of the abilities of nine career inventors within their organisational and historical
contexts demonstrates that the A-E-P triptych is a valid framework to understand inventive
activities and human action before uncertainty. Attentive agents catch and search useful
pieces of information; they test their ideas through experiments by building on existing
knowledge or sometimes by just trying things out; they persuade others thanks to their
natural eloquence or by building on well accepted hard facts.
The present concluding section starts by proposing a table presenting the three abilities
along different levels of uncertainty. It then offers detailed tables outlining the situations,
traits, tactics and strategies that relate to each of the three abilities studied. Specific sets of
conclusions are proposed for each ability and for the three altogether. Implications for a
diversity of economic actors are proposed later.
298
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Uncertainty has been defined here as partial knowledge and a shared ignorance of what will
happen in the future. The historical investigation has shown that depending on how much
knowledge is partial or, in other words, depending on how much uncertainty the inventor
faced, they adopted different tactics and strategies. Measuring uncertainty accurately is
impossible but discerning between three different levels of uncertainty using a qualitative
and basic taxonomy is feasible. This is nothing more than following the footsteps of Smith
(1776) who observed that a division of labour had occurred in inventive activities and that it
matched the distance between objects which were brought together to make the invention.
‘A great part of the machines made use of in those manufactures in which labour is most
subdivided, were originally the invention of common workmen, who, being each of them employed in
some very simple operation, naturally turned their thoughts towards finding out easier and readier
methods of performing it (...). All the improvements in machinery, however, have by no means been
the inventions of those who had occasion to use the machines. Many improvements have been
made by the ingenuity of the makers of the machines, when to make them became the business of
a peculiar trade; and some by that of those who are called philosophers, or men of speculation,
whose trade it is not to do anything, but to observe everything, and who, upon that account, are
often capable of combining together the powers of the most distant and dissimilar objects. In the
progress of society, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other employment, the principal or
sole trade and occupation of a particular class of citizens. Like every other employment, too, it is
subdivided into a great number of different branches, each of which affords occupation to a peculiar
tribe or class of philosophers ; and this subdivision of employment in philosophy, as well as in every
other business, improve dexterity, and saves time. Each individual becomes more expert in his own
peculiar branch, more work is done upon the whole, and the quantity of science is considerably
increased by it.’
The following three levels or domains of uncertainty are built using the evidences observed
in this work:
(1) Providence. The inventors as part of the late 18th century were mainly operating
in this domain of uncertainty, as seldom technical and scientific knowledge had been
accumulated, codified and made accessible. Their personal eloquence and luck helped them
299
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

to meet success in their inventive endeavour. As illustrated by Wedgwood, they usually
progressed their experiments using blind trial and error. Scientists like Coolidge and
Carothers worked on the forefront of scientific knowledge; therefore they sometimes
operated in this domain of uncertainty, they looked for ways to provoke chance or directly
benefited from it. For this level, uncertainty can be characterised as strong, this is the
domain of ‘providence’ where it is nearly impossible to predict what can work.
(2) Learning. Most inventors studied throughout the present work enjoyed scouting
for information, hoping to find something of value. During the 19th century, experiments
performed by Bell or Edison were often guided by analogies and metaphors. Bell and Sperry
developed associations with prominent partners who helped them to persuade others of
the value of their work. Engineers in the semiconductor industry who were part of product
development teams during the 20th century also tended to operate in this domain of
uncertainty. For this level, uncertainty can be characterised as intermediate, this is the
domain of ‘learning’. What can work can be discovered but with some difficulties.
(3) Calculation. Inventors, encountered in this dissertation, often performed rapid,
methodical and fruitful searches for information. They, for instance, read systematically what
was already available to them before exploring specific ideas. Their experiments were
sometimes guided by existing scientific knowledge that had predictive power. This was the
case of Midgley who used the periodic table of elements. Inventors like Watt started to use
graphs, others were able to develop simulations and calculations that prevented them from
performing many experiments. Arkwright and Edison enhanced their ability to persuade
others by self-fashioning and all of them used evidence and hard facts when they were
readily available. The engineers who optimised the railroad industry during the late 19th
century operated mainly in this domain of uncertainty. For this level, uncertainty can be
characterised as low, this is the domain of ‘calculation’, what can work can be predicted with
some simple efforts.
The following figure proposes a didactic and synthetic summary of the findings related to the
A-EP triptych of abilities along the different domain of uncertainty. The examples of tactics,
and strategies proposes at each intersection are illustrative but representative of those
domains of uncertainty.
300
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

PROVIDENCE LEARNING CALCULATION
Attentiveness Lucky Scouting for Rapid and
observations information Systematic
search
Experimentation Trial and error Means‐End analysis Simulation
Analogy Calculation
Theory
Persuasiveness Glibness Association with Self‐
prominent partners fashioning
Hard facts
Strong Weak
Uncertainty
Figure 5: The A-E-P triptych along different degrees of uncertainty
This synthetic figure was built using a series of synoptic tables that outline, for each of the
historical period studied, for each of the abilities investigated and for each of the domains of
uncertainty examined; some of the tactics, strategies, traits and situations that have helped
those inventors increase their chance of success.
These tables are presented underneath, they are not exhaustive but provide a rich
panorama of what is done by career inventors to defy uncertainty and increase their chance
of succeeding in their inventive endeavour. For each of the tactics, strategies, traits and
situations presented, references to the inventors who used them are also provided.
The attribution of the tactics, strategies, traits and situations to a specific domain of
uncertainty was straightforward for most of them. In some cases, a multiple attribution
could have been possible but a single, informed decision was made in order to prevent
confusion.
301
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

This organisation of all the evidences collected as part of the present dissertation forms the
basis of the demonstration of the validity and relevance of the Attentiveness-
Experimentation-Persuasion model proposed in the introductory pages201
A/1 Attentiveness
Table 6: situations, traits, tactics and strategies that relate to Attentiveness
Domains of uncertainty
Providence Learning Calculation
18th century – Attentiveness
Travelling the country and Maintaining a correspondence
engaging conversation about with men of science or
mechanics with other people business people (Wedgwood)
interested in the topic
(Arkwright) Learning from the recent
history of the industry
Luck to meet a mechanic who (Wedgwood)
had worked with someone
who had made previous Scouting for ideas in the
attempts at inventing street of the capital to
something (Arkwright) understand the behaviour of
customers (Wedgwood)
Reading books (Wedgwood)
Meeting with the people who
Copying other’s product are the most likely to buy the
(Watt) inventor’s work (Wedgwood)
Systematically reading on a
topic before experimenting on
it (Watt)
Having friends bringing
scientific or technical
problems to you (Watt)
19th century – Attentiveness
Benefiting from a family Making regular visits to Systematic investigation and
environment supporting the libraries (Bell) analysis of patents, technical
study of specific scientific and scientific literature
201
See infra, Introduction
302
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

topics (Bell) Participating in scientific and (Edison and Sperry)
technical circles (Bell, Sperry)
Residing in a town providing Systematic search of the best
many interactions that Using one’s professorship in existing components or
support inventive activities University that provide access materials that can be used in
(Bell) to scientific resources (Bell) an invention (Edison)
Reading encyclopaedia (Bell) Attending regularly to Establishing escalation
conference and lectures (Bell) mechanism to bring problems
Observation of nature (Bell) to the attention of the chief
Interacting regularly with inventor in a laboratory
Noticing an unexpected scientists (Bell) (Sperry)
phenomenon during an
experiment (Bell, Edison) Re-using ideas from previous Specialisation of one’s
inventive activities (Edison) activities in inventive activities
Paying attention to errors in (Sperry)
experiments (Edison) Encouraging cross fertilization
between projects (Edison) Searching new and rapidly
Luck to find alternative developing business fields
markets for an invention Creating of a library in a (Sperry)
when the intended market laboratory (Edison)
was not a successful one Leaving a business field as it
(Edison) Creating a playful atmosphere matures, when there is less to
that favour exchange amongst learn (Sperry)
people in a laboratory
(Edison) Focusing on salient, critical
problems (Sperry)
Systematic recording of
experiments in notebooks to Observing competitor’s
keep information available for products (Sperry)
the future (Edison)
Acting as consultant for
Favouring self-study in a prominent business as an
laboratory (Edison) access to specific information
(Sperry)
Offering lectures of external
experts within the laboratory
(Edison)
Participating in a club with a
focus on technical matters and
inventions (Sperry)
Pursuing close collaboration
with potential users (Sperry)
Finding different business
fields where specific technical
fields apply (Sperry)
Entering a business field that
opens multiple opportunities
to invent over time (Sperry)
303
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Self-study (Sperry)
Discussing with professors
(Sperry)
Observation of machinery and
invention (Sperry)
Visiting exhibitions (Sperry)
20th century – Attentiveness
Maintaining an interest in a Touring scientific laboratories Responding to the challenge
wide variety of scientific around the world (Coolidge) of your boss (Midgley)
development (Carothers)
Visiting companies which Responding to the needs of
might have solved issues the business (Midgley)
similar to the one the
inventor is facing (Coolidge) Maintaining close relationships
with people in charge of
Sharing problems with production (Coolidge)
inventors operating in
different sectors (Coolidge) Recruiting a promising
scientist (Coolidge,
Reading scientific literature Carothers)
(Carothers)
Working on theoretical issues
(Coolidge, Carothers)
Competing to beat a record
(Carothers)
Investing in science with
deductive power (Carothers)
This synoptic table proves that Attentiveness, as an individual ability, plays a fundamental
role in the success of inventive activities. Furthermore, a number of subsequent
observations can be highlighted:
(1) The personal life history, the physical location or the company of an inventor
influence his inventive activities. Family, long standing friends, or local issues
channel the Attentiveness of an inventor;
304
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(2) Luck favours inventors who are curious and have a knack for observation.
Talented inventors tend to recognise the unexpected phenomenon that proves
useful to them. Their curiosity also encourages them to search actively and
deliberately for what nature, existing technologies or customers can offer them;
(3) Inventors are not isolated agents. They develop relationships, whether friendly
or professional, with a diversity of people who give them access to valuable
information;
(4) Attentiveness contributes to the identification and selection of the business
fields in which an inventor end up operating. It also helps with the identification
and selection of the assets that could be useful to him or his company in the
future;
(5) Throughout history, knowledge has accumulated and the means to access
information have also progressed. However uncertainty is far from being
abolished. The crest line of knowledge progresses and brings many questions
hopes and fears especially as the power of humans is continuously increased.
A/2 Experimentation
Table 7: situations, traits, tactics and strategies that relate to Experimentation
Domains of uncertainty
Providence Learning Calculation
th
18 century – Experimentation
Use of models (Arkwright) Systematic trial and error, Use of a graph to represent
varying parameters one by the findings of experiments
Making parts of a mechanical one (Wedgwood) and to guide design activities
machine work together by (Watt)
trial and error (Arkwright) Creating a small laboratory to
experiment outside of the Recording every experiment
Improving each part production line (Wedgwood) in a notebook (Wedgwood,
separately before getting them Watt)
to work together (Arkwright) Ability to create instruments
(Watt, Wedgwood)
305
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Developing the concept of the
‘perfect engine’ to measure
how far you are from an ideal
(Watt)
Separating a problem into sub-
elements (Watt)
19th century – Experimentation
Tinkering with recent Using metaphors, analogies as Systematic variation of the
technical equipment (Bell) a guide for experiment (Bell, characteristics of the
Edison) components in the last phase
Asking renowned scientists or of the development (Bell)
inventors to react to one’s Reproducing existing scientific
ideas (Bell) experiments to understand Systematic debugging (Bell)
them (Bell)
Use of calculation to guide
Conducting systematic experiments (Bell)
experiments on natural
phenomenon (Bell) Systematic test of alternatives
(Edison)
Pursuing joint investigation of
natural phenomenon with Conducting systematic,
scientist (Bell) comprehensive and
quantitative tests (Sperry)
Conducting experiments in
parallel on different things that Developing systematic
could cross-fertilize each protocols for tests (Sperry)
other (Bell)
Using calculation and
exploring multiple variations mathematical models to guide
of a design (Edison) design (Sperry)
Conducting many scientific Recruiting a skilled
experiments to understand a collaborator to help with the
field practical side of experiments
(Bell)
Using models and prototypes
to test ideas (Edison) Recruiting people with
complementary knowledge
organising the laboratory to and skills (Edison)
favour exchange between
experimenters and machinists Using machinists to produce
(Edison) models and turn ideas into
practice (Edison)
Offering guidance as part of
early morning rounds within
the laboratory (Edison)
Conducting mental
experiments such as
306
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

visualizing the functioning of
machines in your head
(Sperry)
Scaling up models (Sperry)
Separating fundamental
inventive activities from
routine inventive activities
(Sperry)
Joint experiment with users
(Sperry)
20th century – Experimentation
Bumping into a solution by Use of analogy (Midgley, Using the table of
luck (Midgley) Coolidge) experiments to predict what
materials and compounds
Bumping into an unexpected Systematic trial and error would work (Midgley)
phenomenon (Coolidge, (Midgley)
Carothers) Systematic debugging
Favouring serendipity (Coolidge)
(Coolidge)
Creating a working prototype
Pursuing alternative path in that allows modification all
parallel (Coolidge) design parameters (Coolidge)
Using mathematics or other
form of representation
(Carothers)
Using theory as a guide
(Carothers)
Testing combinations
systematically (Carothers)
Out of the three abilities, Experimentation is the one for which the allocation of the
situations, traits, tactics and strategies to specific domains of uncertainty is the most
straightforward. This synoptic table proves that Experimentation, as an individual ability,
plays a fundamental role in the success of inventive activities. Furthermore, a number of
subsequent observations can be highlighted:
307
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(1) Experimentation can be synonym at one end of random trial and error and at the
other end can be extensively guided by science, mathematics or any form of pre-
existing knowledge;
(2) Experimentation is about using what one already knows in order to progress before
uncertainty. Inventors use a diversity of tactics in order to progress in a world that
was neither totally dark nor fully enlightened. Comparisons to an ideal, cross
fertilisations between projects, analogies, exploration of multiple variations can, for
instance, offer valuable help to inventors;
(3) Models and prototypes are important in inventive activities. They can be scaled up
step by step and they allow inventors to validate some of their ideas without fully
developing them. They therefore reduce the cost of experiments and help to save
time;
(4) Throughout History, progress of inventors has been made possible by the progress
of instruments and measurement devices. Many inventors create their own
instruments in order to pursue their work. This can be a time consuming but
necessary detour. This detour is less emphasized in the literature than the need to
explore science to harvest knowledge before coming back to practical inventive
practice;
(5) Science plays an important role in inventive activities. It guides Experimentation and
helps to establish design guidelines using mathematical models. However it would be
misleading to consider that science has contributed to abolishing uncertainty. On the
contrary, as knowledge progresses new uncertainty appears related to its practical
exploitation.
308
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

A/3 Persuasion
Table 8: situations, traits, tactics and strategies that relate to Persuasion
Domains of uncertainty
Providence Learning Calculation
th
18 century – Persuasion
Glibness (Arkwright) Asking relatives to invest in Collecting evidence from
the business (Arkwright, many people for a trial
Marrying a wealthy woman Wedgwood) (Arkwright)
(Wedgwood)
Seeking patronage Lobbying the government
Verve (Wedgwood) (Wedgwood) (Arkwright)
Making friends (Watt) Talking about your flash of Self-fashioning oneself
genius to get people’s amongst your employees
attention (Watt) (Arkwright)
Presenting oneself as a Using models to convince
philosopher (Watt) people you are on the right
track (Watt)
19th century – Persuasion
Personal stature and presence Being a prominent figure in Honours and awards (Bell)
(Bell) another field ((Bell)
Letting technical talent
Marrying the daughter of a Association with a prominent speak (Sperry)
rich and influential person partner (Bell)
(Bell)
Use friends, family and Self-fashioning (wizard of
Enthusiasm of the inventor acquaintance as source of Menlo Park) (Edison)
(Edison) funding (Bell)
Captivating the mind of
Optimism and self-confidence Recognition from professional potential users by telling
of the inventor (Edison) circles (Sperry) them what the future could
bring (Edison)
Determination, self- Association with prominent
confidence and enthusiasm citizens who publicly support
(Sperry) the businesses (Sperry)
Ability to offer clear and Relocation in a city where
simple presentation of investors live (Sperry)
complex things (Sperry)
309
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Use of metaphors to share
ideas (Sperry)
Performing demonstrations to
influential figures and potential
investors (Sperry, Edison, Bell)
Demonstrating invention to
public (Bell, Edison)
Collaborating with the press
(Bell, Edison)
Developing close
collaborations with public
figures and influential people
(Sperry)
Ensuring the reporting of
public demonstrations in the
press (Bell)
Use of the name of a famous
inventor as brand for his
inventions (Edison)
Regular interaction with the
press (Edison)
20th century – Persuasion
Showmanship (Midgley) Creating tricks that impress
people (Midgley)
Lying to the journalists
(Midgley) Using scientific authority to
reassure people (Midgley)
Making explanation easy to
understand (Coolidge) Subsidising a report from
public authorities (Midgley)
Assembling a team of
scientists, lawyers, public
relation experts, etc... to
defend an invention (Midgley)
Creating an association with
magic in the minds of people
(Coolidge)
Gaining honours and awards
(Coolidge)
310
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Demonstrating the invention
of the laboratory (Coolidge)
Collaborating with the press
(Coolidge)
Supporting science and
education (Coolidge)
This synoptic table proves that Persuasion, as an individual ability, plays a fundamental role in
the success of inventive activities. Furthermore, a number of subsequent observations can
be highlighted:
(1) Persuasion appears to be a critical and difficult challenge for inventors. Persuasion,
more than the other two abilities, depends on the personal traits of the character of
the inventor. In some circumstances, the wider public and investors can easily be
seduced by an invention but this is not common place;
(2) To increase their chances of success, inventors sometimes decide to approach the
ones who would tend to be the easiest to convince first, such as members of their
family or their personal friends. Later they often try to gain the patronage or
business support of prominent people;
(3) Many inventors use demonstrations and models in order to persuade others of the
value of their work. This can prove a very powerful means for users and buyers to
envision what benefits they can expect from an invention. It is also a good way to
keep investors patient when they can be impatient to see results;
(4) Inventors often end up lobbying associations, financiers or governments in order to
build acceptance for their ideas and work. Sometimes they use their relationships to
influence others as they might not have all the necessary skills or the relationship to
do this themselves;
311
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

(5) Inventors who have already gained a reputation for their work, usually try to
maintain and enhance it. Sometimes, they fashion themselves to appear as a great
man, a genius, a magician or someone who knows a lot about the future. They tell
stories where their moment of luck or flashes of genius captivate the imagination of
people. They present themselves as a lonely genius to gain the maximum benefit
from the association of their name with an invention;
(6) In a number of situations, some inventors were ready to do anything to promote
their invention, for example Edison with the electric chair and Midgley with leaded
fuel. Inventors can make best use of their image but they can also abuse it and start
manipulating opinion. As they are often at the forefront of specific scientific
developments, it can be difficult for others to sort out the truth from what comes
out of the imagination of the inventor. Inventors create information asymmetries
that can be difficult to counter balance.
A/4 Conclusions related to the three abilities
Each invention has its own story, an idiosyncratic succession of practices but the A-E-P
triptych reveals the salient practices and abilities that have proven critical to their discovery.
The tactics and strategies presented above can be useful in a diversity of situations. One
inventor does not need to adopt all of them to meet success. He needs to adopt the ones
that are the most appropriate to solve the practical problems he faces. Nevertheless all of
the career inventors studied demonstrated some abilities in each element of the A-E-P
triptych. At the same time, the accomplishments of the career inventors studied throughout
History rely on the subtle combination of a diversity of traits, tactics and strategies
throughout time more than on specific ones that could be magnified. In the end, inventive
activities appear as the product of both: determinism (what can be done at a certain place
and moment in time with the knowledge available), luck (the encounter of different
disjointed pieces of information thanks to an inventor) and will (the determination of
inventors to pursue their investigation and to persuade others of the value of their work).
312
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

The A-E-P triptych of abilities can help to bridge the understanding between economists
who tend to adhere to methodological individualism and economists who tend to study
innovation as a collective phenomenon. The A-E-P triptych offers them a common ground
that could contribute to developing a common vocabulary. The present work shows that
concepts such as search routines (1982) (Malerba 1992) (Levinthal and March 1993),
absorptive capacity (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) (Zahra and George, 2002) or open innovation
(Chesbrough, 2006) can be reinterpreted using the A-E-P triptych.
Moreover, some practical lessons from the study of the A-E-P triptych can be learnt by
different players in society:
(1) It might be difficult to copy the traits of character and personal history of inventors
but the tactics and strategies used by inventors can be imitated, copied and
therefore taught. It is possible to educate people to act as an inventor. This should
be done by paying attention to the three domains of uncertainty and the three
abilities altogether. The learning that took place amongst people engaged in
inventive activities within Edison laboratories or within the G.E. research laboratory
demonstrates that this is possible;
(2) Stimulating inventive activities in a specific region or country could be done by
supporting the A-E-P triptych abilities in a diversity of ways. Government could
facilitate the access to useful information that will fuel the Attentiveness of
inventors. They need to understand the level of uncertainty associated with the
experiments performed in different scientific or technical fields before investing
money and resources where it is the most useful along the chain of inventive
activities. Government could help inventors to persuade others of the value of their
work by organising public events such as awards and exhibitions. Moreover,
inventive activities should appear as attractive and exciting occupations as it was the
case during each of the period of history studied;
(3) Stimulating inventive activities in a company can benefit by helping managers to
understand the specific abilities of the people performing these activities. As it was
313
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

highlighted for the research laboratories of the 20th century, managers need to adapt
their style to each individual in order to get the most of the group at the end.
B/ Collective arrangements
Bastiat (1966) discussed in Economic Harmonies the nature of inventive activities. He believes
that communication amongst men favour inventive activities. They can build on each other’s
discoveries without the pain of inventing or re-inventing everything. Observations and
inventions are relayed thanks to communication between individuals:
‘Now, no man is in a position to see everything, and it is much easier to learn than to
invent. But when several men are in communication, what one observes is soon known by
all, and only one of them needs to be especially ingenious for all of them soon to be in
possession of valuable discoveries. The sum total of knowledge, therefore, grows much more
rapidly than in the state of isolation, not to mention that it can be preserved and, therefore,
passed on from generation to generation’ (Bastiat, 1966).
Inventive activities are not performed by a few isolated individuals, indeed, they are generally
the result of the collective actions of inventors and other professionals. Using the A-E-P
triptych, a diversity of patterns of collaboration has started to be identified. They were
described as ‘regimes of invention’ 202 and considered a ‘collective arrangement’ when they
could be encountered in a different place and time. The empirical evidence collected shows
that the E-A-P triptych appears as a useful framework to characterize and differentiate
amongst different patterns of collaboration between agents engaged in inventive activities.
The level of uncertainty, and a number of characteristics of the technique being used or
invented such as the costs of experiments and the multiplicity of its applications form the
basis of a taxonomy of collective arrangements that will be presented underneath.
202
A regime of invention has previously been defined as a coherent set of inventive practices used by a group of
individuals at a particular point in time and in a given situation. It is not the description of what one individual
has done but a description of what a group of people has done. It is not a recipe for success but a set of practices.
Regimes of invention are here an organised description of the reality that uses the A-E-P triptych to guide the
analysis. When a regime of invention appears as a particular case that embodies the chief characteristics of a
common case, it will be called collective arrangement.
314
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

But first the following table allows comparing the regime of invention encountered in the
present dissertation within their historical context:
Table 9: regimes of invention studied using the A-E-P triptych
Attentiveness Experimentation Persuasion
England, late 18th century
The Lunar Society Independent Experiments and Independent
inventors, taking part demonstrations are inventors within the
in the network are used to entertain, to network join forces
attentive to spread insights, to to persuade others to
information and share information and adopt their inventions
insights brought to to provoke feedback or to lobby important
the table by other from other members stakeholders.
regular and occasional of the network.
members.
America, railroad industry, 19th century
Regime I: railroad Opportunities come Mechanics tinkered Chief engineers in the
companies first from technical with their machines. railroad companies
part of the 19th development outside They performed organised the internal
century of the railroad occasional tests and dissemination of
companies. These trials of new devices advertising materials
external using ad hoc for invention.
developments are approaches. Decision to adopt an
monitored by chief invention or not was
engineers within the the result of
railroad companies. discussions and
debates amongst
specialists.
Regime II: railroad Engineers identified Engineers conducted Engineers produced
companies: second internal problems and systematic campaign systematic costing and
part of the 19th opportunities for cost of Experimentation financial analysis of
century optimisation and with the methods problems and
standardization. used in science. solutions.
America, the transistor, 20th century
Regime I : Scientists were Scientists worked in Inventors (scientists)
Corporate attentive to scientific teams in order to needed to persuade
Research developments address the increasing the business unit
Laboratory such specialization in managers and key
as Bell Lab scientific knowledge people that they can
and activities. be of good use to
them.
They are also Expensive The firm sometimes
attentive to the experiments were used the image of the
315
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

business needs of the conducted to scientist to persuade
firm they serve which understand scientific people of the value of
operated in phenomenon. their products
competitive markets
Science guided
practice but luck and
systematic search still
played a role
Regime II : Engineers were Engineers focused on Engineers needed to
Development attentive to internal practical, internal persuade customers
teams in technical issues such technical challenges that they could
specialized firms as low cost-low such as the ability to deliver the technical
such as Texas defects production. deliver defect free performance that
Instruments. products. they promised them.
They were also They also validated
attentive to the and tested future
customer and market production
needs and the equipment.
technical
development specific
to their activities.
Regime III : Independent Independent Independent
Network of inventors, within the inventors inventors needed to
independent network were experimented by persuade others:
inventors such as attentive to the tinkering with their venture capitalists,
the ones of the market opportunities electronic circuits. colleagues and
Silicon Valley. that could make best potential users of the
use of their skills. value of their ideas
and work.
They were also They did not
attentive to the investigate scientific
technical problems but simply
developments that combined and re-
occurred around combined electronic
them. components, hoping
to bump into a star
component or
product.
They tested their
market ideas by
sharing them with
potential investors.
The collective arrangements encountered in the present work are part of a complex web of
specific knowledge, events, practices and discourse of their time. The Lunar Society
appeared as machines were getting more complex, when steam power started to be
316
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

mastered, when the factory system and the emergence of a new bourgeoisie offered a
multiplicity of opportunities to entrepreneurs. The inventive hierarchy appeared when the
development of the rail, a large system, encountered some challenges due to its technical
structure. The rail network could not be optimized by addressing its sections independently
but by treating it as an integrated large scale object. The research laboratories of the 20th
century appeared when, from a technical perspective, physics became predictive:
mathematical models and theoretical tools like the periodic table of elements allowed
inventors to ‘ransack the garden of nature’. It will help to understand these regimes of
invention by looking at the specific historical circumstances that lead to their appearance.
Nevertheless some generalisation can be made to throw some light on how the different
collective arrangements complement each other and how a division of labour operated
amongst them.
The collective arrangements studied did not replace each other as a sort of movement
toward greater rationality; they accumulated throughout history and complemented each
other. Even if the networks of inventors investigated here carried the signs of their time,
they appeared at a different time and place in history. Even if the proponents of research
laboratories announced the demise of independent inventors, many inventions were brought
to life by individuals outside of those laboratories.
The following diagram offers a practical taxonomy of the generic collective arrangements
that we encountered in the present work. This taxonomy uses the domain of uncertainty of
the A-E-P triptych on one axis and a group of parameters that relate to the nature of the
object invented on the other axis:
• The cost of experiments;
• Multiplicity of application.
317
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Providence Learning Rationality
Cost of experiments: Low
Networks of
Multiplicity of applications: High independent
inventors
Development
teams in Inventive
specialised hierarchies
f irms
Research
laboratories
Cost of experiments: High
Multiplicity of application: Low
Strong Uncertainty Weak
Figure 6: taxonomy of collective arrangements
Networks of inventors and research laboratories are best suited when a high level of
uncertainties prevail. Networks of inventors are characterised by (1) low cost experiments
requiring a limited breadth of skills and competencies and (2) a multiplicity of application for
the technique being used by inventors. The research laboratories appeared within firms
when (1) competitors worked on specific and promising techniques that left firms with no
other options; they had to anticipate future scientific and technical developments and (2)
when the cost of experiments rose and large teams were needed to perform experiments.
Networks of inventors encountered in the present work were the Lunar Society, the
network of machinists who led development in the railroad industry and the networks
within the Silicon Valley. Today networks of inventors continue to be a visible and a much
talked about collective arrangement. Inventors who are part of such networks might work
for a university laboratory, a small firm or can be independent ‘garage inventors’. Research
laboratories, dealing with advanced science, continue to be active and are now often trying
to embrace ‘open innovation’ in a globalized context.
Inventive hierarchies focus on the optimisation of specific internal parameters such as cost.
They address the domain of uncertainty called rationality. We investigated in the present
work the first inventive hierarchies that appeared with the railroad industry. Since that time,
firms which have had to achieve extensive cost reductions have adopted this collective
318
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

arrangement. External developments are ignored and demonstrating quantifiable cost
reductions is the only way to persuade principals of the value of a specific action.
Development teams within specialised firms are characterised by inventors, often engineers
balancing (1) opportunities provided by scientific and technological development; (2) the
imperative to respond to the more immediate needs of customers and (3) development and
operational costs constraints. This collective arrangement is best positioned here within the
domain of uncertainty called learning.
We have encountered in the present work development teams within specialised firms such
as Texas Instruments and Intel. They are present nowadays in many industries.
Collective arrangements are the result of human actions, they enable agents to pursue their
ambitions but can also constrain them in the longer run. Because of this, an industry or a
firm can emerge thanks to a specific collective arrangement and moved across this
taxonomy throughout its life-cycle. Railroad companies emerged and developed out of the
inventive efforts of a network of machinists. This collective arrangement enabled a rapid
growth and offered a sustained flow of technical inventions. However it became a constraint
and railroad companies established inventive hierarchy with an engineering and
standardisation culture that aimed at mastering costs.
Building on this taxonomy, wider investigations of the regimes of invention supporting
inventive activities need to be pursued in the future. This could be done by adopting a
sector-specific approach (Pavitt; 1984) (Malerba; 2005). The use of the A-E-P triptych could
enrich our understanding of why innovation is performed using different patterns of
collaboration within different technical fields or sectors. This would allow us to further
qualify and understand the parameters that characterize the collective arrangements
supporting inventive activities. Moreover the history of specific industry or technology could
also be pursued in order to understand how institutional transformations occur.
319
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

C/ Further potential investigations
Following this dissertation, a number of further investigations could be undertaken.
Attentiveness, one of the three abilities could serve to further understand what a firm’s
strategy is and how it operates. A strategy could be interpreted as a hypothesis about the
assets that will bring, rent to the firm in the future. Strategizing could therefore be
described as a mechanism to shape the attention of agents within a firm toward the assets
that could become a source of rent in the future. This would allow us to contend that
strategising would not just be about economising on today’s costs as Williamson (1996)
suggested, but also about anticipating future assets. Williamson’s approach would remain
valid when uncertainty related to assets and their specificity is non-existent or deliberately
ignored. Nevertheless, the A-E-P model would help us to look beyond this and see firms as
a means to strategize by anticipating the value and specificity of a future combination of
assets.
Another development that could be investigated relates to Persuasion. By investigating the
practices used by inventors to persuade others of the value of their work, we could better
understand how the preferences of economic agents are shaped as a result of inventive
activities. This could lead to an understanding of how information asymmetries are
consciously created to gain economic advantages by agents and firms engaged in inventive
activities. This is something that could prove informative as uncertainty increasingly
dominates human actions. A general study of the role of Persuasion in society would be a
daunting task and most certainly a source of contentious debates. However, it would
certainly be interesting to restrict the scope of further investigation and study ‘how sciences
sell’. This could lead to understanding how scientific disciplines can borrow analogies from
other fields and use them as programmes; how scientific disciplines compete for funding not
only by lobbying states and firms but also by getting attention from people in society and
how a sometimes misleading discourse about science and technology that provokes fears
and hope influences the preferences of economic agents and decision makers.
320
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

321
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

Bibliography
ACS, Z.J., AUDRETSCH, D.B. BRAUNERHJELM, P. and CARLSSON, B. (2006)
The Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship, CESIS - Electronic Working Paper Series,
nº 77, novembre 2006
ADAMS R. (1939) Wallace Hume Carother, National Academy of Sciences Biographical
Memoirs, vol. 20, 1939
AKERLOF, G. A. (1970): The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market
Mechanism, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 84, nº 3, pp. 488-500, août 1970
AKRICH, M., CALLON, B. & LATOUR B. (2002a), ‘The key to success in innovation,
Part 1: The art of interessement’. International Journal of Innovation Management., vol. 6, nº 2,
pp. 187-206, juin 2002
AKRICH, M. CALLON, B. & LATOUR B. (2002b), ‘The key to success in innovation,
Part 2: The art of choosing good spokespersons’. International Journal of Innovation
Management, vol. 6, nº 2, pp. 207-225, juin 2002
ALDER, K (1997) Innovation and Amnesia: Engineering Rationality and the Fate of
Interchangeable Parts Manufacturing in France, Technology and Culture, vol. 38, nº 2, pp. 273-
311, avril 1997
AMABLE B. (2003), Les systèmes d’innovation, in MUSTAR Ph. & PENAN H. (Dir.) :
Encyclopédie de l’innovation, Paris, Éditions Economica
AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS (ASTM) (1910), The life and life-work of
Charles Benjamin Dudley, Thèse de doctorat, Philadelphia
ANGLADE J. (1990), Les Montgolfier, Paris, Perrin
ARENDT, H. (1958, 1992), La Condition de l'homme moderne, Paris, Pocket, (réédition
1992)
ARROW, K. J. (1994) ‘Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge’, American
Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), vol. 84, nº 2, pp. 1-9, mai 1994
ATKIN, R. & ESIRI, M., (1993), Informal Investment – Investor And Investee
Relationships. Paper to the 16th National Small Firms Policy and Research Conference,
Nottingham, 17-19 November 1993.
AXELROD, R. (1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, Basic Books
AXELSSON B., EASTON G. (1992), Industrial networks - A new view of reality, London,
Routledge.
322
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

BACON F. (1620, 1960), The New Organon, Indianapolis, Ed. Fulton H. Anderson/ Liberal
Arts Press.
BAINES E. (1835, 1966), History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain. London, Frank
Cass & Co. Ltd.
BARNEY, J.B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. In
Management Science, nº 32, pp. 1231-1241, octobre 1986.
BARNEY J. B. (1991), Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of
Management, vol 17, nº1, pp. 99-120, mars 1991.
BASTIAT F., (1966) Economic Harmonies, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, Foundation for
Economic Education
BAUDET J. (2003) : De la machine au système - Histoire des techniques depuis 1800 (2 vol.)
Paris, Vuibert
BERGOFF H. (1995), Regional variations in Provincial Business Biography: The case of
Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester, 1870-1914, Business History, vol. 37, pp. 64-85.
BERNSTEIN M. (2002), Thomas Midgley and the law of unintended consequences,
Invention & Technology, vol. 17, nº 4, pp.17-38, Printemps 2002
BIAGIOLI, M. (1993). Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of
Absolutism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
BRADSHAW G. (2005), What's So Hard About Rocket Science? Secrets the Rocket Boys Knew,
pp. 259-276, in GORMAN, M. TWENEY, R. GOODING, D & KINCANNON, A.
(2005), Scientific and Technological Thinking, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
*BRAUDEL F. (1979), Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme XVème – XVIIIème
siècles, Tomes 1 : Les Structures du quotidien, Tome 2 : Les Jeux de l'échange, Tome 3 : Le
Temps du monde, Paris, Le Livre de Poche (collection Référence), 1979
BROGAN, H. (2001), The Penguin history of the United States of America, Londres, Penguin
Books, 2001, 737p , 2nd ed
BRUSONI, S., PRENCIPE A. and PAVITT K. (2001) Knowledge Specialization,
Organizational Coupling, and the Boundaries of the Firm: Why Do Firms Know More Than
They Make?, in Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 46, nº4, pp. 597-621, décembre 2001
BRUSONI, S., PRENCIPE A. (2001), ‘Technologies, Product, Organisations: opening
the black box of modularity’, in Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 10 nº 1, pp. 179-205
323
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

BRUSONI S. and K. PAVITT (2002) Problem solving and the coordination of economic
activities, Paper prepared for the Conference ‘Organizational Innovation Within Firms’, St.
Gobain Centre for Economic Research, Paris, Novembre 7-8, 2002.
BRUCE, R. (1973) Alexander graham Bell and the conquest of solitude, Ithaca and London,
Cornell University Press, 1973
BUDERI Robert (2001), Engines of Tomorrow: How the World's Best Companies Are Using
Their Research Labs to Win the Future, Simon & Schuster Adult Publishing Group, juillet 2001,
448pp
BURTON M. D., SORENSEN J. B. and BECKMAN C. M.. (2002). “Coming from
Good Stock: Career Histories and New Venture Formation” in LOUNSBURY M. and
VENTRESCA M. J. (Eds.) (2002) Research in the Sociology of Organizations,. Vol. 19: 229-
262. Oxford, U.K., Elsevier (JAI Press), 2002.
BUSH, V. (1945). Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President. Washington, D.C.,
United States Government Printing Office
CALLON, M. and LAW, J. (1977) After the individual in society: lessons on collectivism
from science, technology and society in Canadian Journal of sociology, , vol. 22 nº 2, pp. 165-
182, Printemps 1977
CARLSON, W. B (1991): Innovation as a Social Process, Elihu Thomson and the
Rise of General Electric, 1870–1900, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
CASTILLA E., GRANOVETTER M., GRANOVETTER E. and HWANG H.,
(2000), Social Networks in Silicon Valley, Chapter 11, in LEE C-M, MILLER W. F.,
ROWEN H., and HANCOCK M., The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, Stanford, Stanford University Press
CHANDLER A. D. Jr. (1977), The Visible Hand, the Managerial Revolution in American
Business. Cambridge, The Belknap Press.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2003): Open Innovation The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting
from Technology., Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
CHESBROUGH, H., VANHAVERBEKE W. & WEST J., eds. (2006) Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press
COASE, R. (1937) : The nature of the firm, Economica, vol. 4, pp. 386
COHEN, W. M. & D. A. LEVINTHAL (1989), 'Innovation and Learning: the Two faces
of R&D,' The Economic Journal, vol. 99, pp. 569-596.
COHEN W., LEVINTHAL D. (1990), Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on
Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, No 1, pp.128-152.
324
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

CONNER C. (2005) A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and Low Mechaniks
Perseus Publishing, November 2005, 554pp
COURTNEY, H., J. KIRKLAND AND P. VIGUERIE, (1997), Strategy under
Uncertainty, Harvard Business Review, November-December 1997, pp. 67-79.
CUNHA, M. P. (2005), Serendipity: why some organizations are luckier than others,
FEUNL Working Paper Series (Lisbonne), nº 472
CYERT, R. M. & MARCH J. G. (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J, Prentice-Hall
DAHLIN, K., TAYLOR M.R., & FICHMAN, M. (2004), Today’s Edisons or Weekend
Hobbyists: Technical Merit and Success of Inventions by Independent Inventors, Research
Policy, vol. 33, nº 8, pp. 1167-1183, October 2004
DAUMAS M. (1996) Histoire générale des techniques, Paris, Presses Universitaires de
France, vol. 1 to 5, 3744p
DAVID, P. (1985) Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, American Economic Review , vol.
75, pp. 332-337
DEBRESSON C., WALKER R. (1991), Special issue on networks of innovators, Research
Policy. vol. 20, nº 5
DEBREU G. (1959), Theory of Value, New York, Wiley.
DENZAU, A. & NORTH, D. (1994), Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions,
Kyklos, vol. 47, nº 1, pp. 3-31.
DEQUECH, D. (2001), ‘Bounded Rationality, Institutions, and Uncertainty’, Journal of
Economic Issues, vol. 35, nº 4, pp. 911-29.
DIAMOND, J. (1998), Guns, Germs and Steel: A Short History of Everybody for the Last 13000
Years, London, Vintage.
DICKINSON H. (1967) James Watt, Craftsman and Engineer, New York, Augustus Kelley
Publishers.
DICKINSON H. W. (1999) Boulton, Warwickshire, TEE Publishing.
DOLAN B. (2004), Josiah Wedgwood: Entrepreneur to the Enlightenment, London, Harper
Collins
DOSI G. (1991), Some Notes on National Systems of Innovation and Production, and their
Implications for Economic Analysis, in ARCHIBUGI D., J. HOWELLS AND MICHIE J.,
Innovation Policy in a Global Economy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 35-48.
325
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

DOSI, G. & EGIDI, M. (1991) : Substantive and Procedural Uncertainty: An Exploration of
Economic Behaviors in Changing Environments, Journal of evolutionary Economics , vol. 1, nº 2,
April 1991, pp. 145-68.
DOSI, G., FREEMAN, C., NELSON, R., SILVERBERG, G. AND SOETE, L. G.
(eds.) (1988) Technical Change and Economic Theory, London, Pinter
DOSI Giovanni, FAGIOLO Giorgio & MARENGO Luigi, (2003), Learning in
Evolutionary Environments, LEM Papers Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management
(LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, vol. 20, 2003
DOSI, G. ORSENIGO, L. & LABINI, M. S. (2002), Technology and the Economy, LEM
Working Paper Series, August 2002,
DYER, F. & MARTIN, T. (1910) Edison, His Life and Inventions, New York, Harper &
Brothers
ECKERT M. & SCHUBERT H. (1986) Crystals, Electrons, Transistors: From Scholar's Study
to Industrial Research, New York, American Institute of Physics, 1990
EDGERTON David (2006) The Shock of the Old: Technology in Global History Since 1900,
Profile Books Ltd
EDQUIST C. (1997), Systems of innovation, London, Frances Pinter
EDQUIST C. (1997), Institutions and organisations in systems of innovation: the state of the art,
Sweden, Linkoping University, Working Paper n°182.
EGGERTSSON T. (1990), Economic Behavior and Institutions, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press
EISENHARDT, K.M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review, Academy of
Management Review, vol 14, n°1, pp 57-74.
EISENHARDT, K.M. & MARTIN J.A. (2000): Dynamic capabilities: What are they?,
Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, pp. 1105-1121.
EDELHEIT L. (2004) Perspective on GE research & development, Research technology
management, Jan-Feb 2004, pp 49-55
ELSTER, J. (1985) The nature and scope of rational-choice explanations in LEPORE, E &
McLAUGHLIN, B (1985) Actions and Events: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald
Davidson, Oxford, Blackwell
EPSTEIN S. (2005), Transferring technical knowledge and innovating in Europe, c.1200-c.1800,
Working Paper, London, London School of Economics
326
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

ESSIG, M. (2003) Edison and the electric chair, A story of light and death, New York: Walker
and company
FAGERBERG J., MOWERY D.C. & NELSON R.R. (éd.)(2005): The Oxford handbook of
innovation, Oxford (GB), Oxford University Press, 2005, 656 p.
FELIN T. & FOSS N. J. (2004) Methodological Individualism and the Organizational
Capabilities Approach, CKG Working paper, vol. 5, 2004
WEDGWOOD, J. (1965) The Selected Letters of Josiah Wedgwood / Edited By Ann Finer and
George Savage, London, Cory. Adams & Mackay, (1st Edition)
FINN, B. (2004) A brilliant achievement, Electric Perspectives, Sept - Oct 2004
FISK K. (1998), Arkwright Cotton King or Spin Doctor? History Today, vol. 48, mars 1998.
FITTON R. S. (1989) The Arkwrights: Spinners of fortune, Manchester, Manchester
University Press, 1989
FOUCAULT M., (2001) Dits et Ecrits, tome 1 : 1954-1975, Paris, Gallimard
FOUCAULT M. (2001) Dits et Ecrits, tome 2 : 1976 - 1988, Paris, Gallimard
FREEAR, J., SOHL, J. E. & WETZEL, W. E. jr., (1992), The Investment Attitudes,
Behavior And Characteristics Of High Net Worth Individuals in N. C. CHURCHILL, S.
BIRLEY, W. D. BYGRAVE, D. F. MUZYKA, C. WAHLBIN AND W. E.
WETZEL, JR. (ed.), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. , Babson Park (MA), Babson
College, pp.374-387
FREEMAN C. (1995), The National System of Innovation’ in Historical Perspective,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 19, pp. 5-24.
FREEMAN C. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan,
London, Frances Pinte
FRIED Vance H. & HISRICH Robert D. (1994) Toward a Model of Venture Capital
Investment Decision Making, Financial Management, vol. 23, nº 3, automne 1994
FRIEDMAN M. (1953), Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago, University of Chicago Press
FURUKAWA, Y. (1998) Inventing Polymer Science: Staudinger, Carothers, and the Emergence
of Marcromolecular Chemistry, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press
GAINES A. (2001) Wallace Carothers and the Story of DuPont Nylon, Mitchell Lane
Publishers, 3ème édition
GILLE B. (1978), Histoire des techniques, Technique et civilisation, technique et sciences,
Paris, Gallimard, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade.
327
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

GOLINSKI J. (1992), Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760-
1820, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
GRANOVETTER, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, vol.
78, pp. 1360-1380.
GRANOVETTER M. (1985), Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, nº 3, pp. 481-510.
GREEN M. (2007), The Nearly Men: A Chronicle of Scientific Failure: The Real People Behind
History's Greatest Innovations, Gloucestershire, The History Press Ltd
GREENBLATT S. (1980), Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press
GROSVERNOR, E. & WESSON, M. (1997) Alexander Graham Bell, The life and time of
the man who invented the telephone, New York, Harry Abrams Incorporated
GUEST R. (1823), Compendious History of the Cotton Manufacture, Manchester, s.e.
HAGEN E. (1962), On the theory of social change, Homewood, Illinois Dorsey Press.
HAGEN Everett (1962) On the Theory of Social Change, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
HÅKANSSON, H. & I. SNEHOTA (1995) Developing relationships in business networks.
London, Routledge
HAMBERG D. (1963) Invention in the industrial research Laboratory in The journal of
Political economy, vol 71, nº 2 (April 1963), pp. 95-115
HARGADON, A. (2003) Retooling R&D: Technology brokering and the pursuit of
innovation, Ivey Business Journal, Nov - Dec 2003, pp. 1-7
HAYEK, FRIEDRICH VON. 1942. “Scientism and the Study of Man I,” Economica, vol. 9,
pp. 267-91
HAYEK, FRIEDRICH VON. 1943. “Scientism and the Study of Man II,” Economica, vol.
10, pp. 34-63.
HAYEK, FRIEDRICH VON. 1944. “Scientism and the Study of Man III,” Economica, vol.
11, pp. 27-39.
HERMES W. (1996) Enough for One Lifetime: Wallace Carothers, Inventor of Nylon,
Philadelphie, Chemical Heritage Foundation
HILLS R. (1973), Richard Arkwright and cotton spinning, Abbottswood, Priory Press,
328
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

HILLS R (2002), James Watt Volume 1: His time in Scotland, 1736-1774, England, Landmark
Publishing
HILLS R. (2005), James Watt Volume 2: The years of toil, 1775-1785, England, Landmark
Publishing
HILLS R. (2006), James Watt Volume 3: Triumph through adversity, 1785-1819, England,
Landmark Publishing
HILLS, G. E., LUMPKIN, G. T., & SINGH, R. P. (1997). Opportunity recognition:
Perceptions and behaviors of entrepreneurs. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,
MA, Babson College
HOBSBAWM E. (1970, 1998, 2002), L’ère des révolutions (1789-1848), Paris, Fayard,
(1970 ; rééd, Complexe, Bruxelles, 1988 ; rééd. Hachette, Paris, 2002)
HOBSBAWM E. (1995), The Age of Extremes: the Short twentieth Century, 1914-1991,
Abacus, (réédition 12 Oct 1995)
HODGSON G. M. (2006), What Are Institutions?, Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 40, Nº 1,
pp. 1-25, Mars 2006,
HODGSON G. M. (2000), What Is the Essence of Institutional Economics, Journal
of Economic Issues, vol. 34, nº 2, pp. 317-329.
HODGSON G.M. (2007) Meanings of Methodological Individualism, Journal of Economic
Methodology, vol. 14, nº 2, Juin 2007, pp. 211-26.
HOCHADEL O., A Shock to the Public: Itinerant Lecturers and Instrument Makers as
Practitioners of Electricity in the German Enlightenment (1740-1800), Working paper,
Universität Pavia
HOUNSHELL D.A. & SMITH J.K. JR. (1988), Science and Corporate Strategy: DuPont
R&D, 1902-1980, New-York, Cambridge University Press
HOWE A.C. (1984), Cotton Masters 1830-1860, Oxford, Oxford University Press
HUDSON, P. (1992) The Industrial Revolution. London: Hodder Arnold
HUGHES, T. (1971) Elmer Sperry inventor and engineer, Baltimore and London, John
Hopkins University Press
HUGHES, T. (2004) American genesis, a century of invention and technological enthusiasm,
Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press
HUME D. (1739-1740 / 2007) A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), 2 volumes, USA,
Oxford University Press, Critical edition
329
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

HUME D. (1748 / 2007) - An Enquiriy concerning Human Understanding (1748), USA, Oxford
University Press
ISRAEL, P. (1998) Edison a life of invention, New York, Wiley
JEREMY D. (1998). Religion, Business and Wealth in Modern Britain. New York, Routledge
JONNES J. (2004) Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the Race to Electrify the
World, New-York, Random House Trade Paperbacks,
JOYCE, R.M. (1983) Elmer keiser Bolton 1886—1968 A Biographical Memoir,
Washington D.C. National Academy of Sciences
KEEN P. (2006), The ‘Balloonmania’: science and spectacle in 1780s, Eighteenth Century
Studies; Summer 2006; Vol. 39, nº 4, pp 507-535
KENNEY M., PATTON D. (2003), Innovation and Social Capital in Silicon Valley, Working
Paper 155 for the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy, University of
California, July 2003.
KETTERING, C. F. (1947). Thomas Midgley, Jr., 1880-1944. In Biographical Memoirs, Vol.
24. Washington, D.C: National Academy of Sciences pp. 361-376
KEYNES J. (1973) Treatise on probability - Vol VIII of the collective writings of John Maynard
Keynes, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
KIRZNER, I. (1992) The Meaning of market process: Essays in the development of modern
Austrian Economics, New York: Routledge
KIRZNER I., (1997) Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An
Austrian Approach’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXV, Mars 2007, pp. 60-85.
KIRZNER I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
KIRZNER I. M. (1979) Perception, Opportunity and Profit. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
KLAHR D. & DUNBAR K. (1988) Dual Space Search During Scientific Reasoning, in
Cognitive Science, vol. 12, pp. l-48
KLAHR D. & SIMON H. (2001), What have psychologists (and others) discovered about the
process of scientific discovery? Current Directions, Psychological Science, vol. 10, Nº 3, pp. 75-79 ,
Juin 2001.
KNIGHT F. K. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit, Boston, Massachusetts, Hart, Schaffner
& Marx Houghton Mifflin Company
330
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

KRIGE J. & PESTRE D. (2003) Companion Encyclopedia of Science in the Twentieth Century,
Oxford, Routledge/ Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
KULKANI D. & SIMON, H. (1988) ‘The process of scientific discovery: the strategy of
experimentation’ in Cognitive Science, vol. 12, pp.139-175
LANDES D. S. (1999), The wealth and poverty of nations: why some are so rich and some so
poor? New York, W.W. Norton
LAMOREAUX N. R. & D. TEMIN, P. (2002) Beyond Markets and Hierarchies: Toward
a New Synthesis of American Business History, Working paper 9029, National Bureau of
Economic Research, July 2002
LAMOREAUX N., RAFF D. & TEMINS P. (eds.) (1999) Learning by Firms, Organizations
and Countries, Series: NBER-C, National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report,
Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
LAMORAUX, RAFF, TEMIN (2004) Against whig history, Enterprise & Society, vol. 5
LANDES D. S. (2003), The unbound Prometheus: technical change and industrial development
in Western Europe from 1750 to present, New York, Cambridge University Press
LANGLOIS R. (1992) Transaction-cost Economics in Real Time, Industrial and Corporate
Change, n° I (1992), pp 99-127
LANGLOIS, R. (2003) The Vanishing Hand: the Changing Dynamics of Industrial
Capitalism Industrial and Corporate Change , vol. 12, nº 2, pp. 351-385
LANGLOIS, R. & COSGEL, M. (1993) Frank Knight on risk, uncertainty, and the firm: a
new interpretation, Economic Inquiry, vol. 31, pp. 456-465
LANGLOIS R., ROBERTSON P. (1995), Firms, markets, and economic change: a dynamic.
theory of business institutions, London, Routledge
LANGLOIS R. (2002) Digital Technology and Economic Growth: the History of
Semiconductors and Computers in STEIL B., VICTOR D., & NELSON R. (2002)
Technological Innovation and Economic Performance. Princeton, Princeton University Press for
the Council on Foreign Relations, pp. 265-284.
LANGLOIS R. (2003) Chandler in a larger frame: markets, transaction costs and organizational
form in history. Document de travail, (Juin 2003, revisé en Janvier 2004)
LANGLOIS R. (1992) External Economies and Economic Progress: The Case of the
Microcomputer Industry, Business History Review 66(1): 1-50 (Spring 1992), reprinted in
LAZONICK W. & MASS W. (ed.) (1995) Organizational Capability and Competitive
Advantage. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
331
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

LEONARD-BARTON, D. (1992) Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in
Managing New Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 13, pp. 111-125.
LE ROUX M. (1998), L’entreprise et la recherche. Un siècle de recherche industrielle à Péchiney.
Paris,
LEVINTHAL D.A. & MARCH J.G. (1993) The myopia of learning, Strategic Management
Journal, vol. 14 (Special issue on organizations, decision making and strategy (Hiver), pp. 95-
112.
LIEBHAFSKY, H. (1974) William David Coolidge a centenarian and his work, New York,
John Wiley and Sons
LUNDVALL, B.-A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: towards a Theory of Innovation and
Interactive Learning, London, Pinter Publishers
MAC GRAYNE S.B. (2002) Promotheans in the lab, McGraw-Hill, 1ère édition (August 1,
2002)
MACKAY, J. (1997) Sounds out of silence, A life of Alexander Graham Bell, Edinburgh:
Mainstream Publishing
MACLAURIN, W.R. (1955) Innovation and capital formation in some American
industries, in NBER (1955) Capital formation and economic growth, Princeton, Princeton
University Press, pp 551-578
MACLEOD C. (1998), Inventing the industrial revolution: the English Patent System, 1660-
1800, England, Cambridge University Press
MALERBA, F. (1992), Learning by firms and incremental technical change, Economic Journal
vol. 102 (juillet), pp. 845-859
MALERBA F. (2002), Sectoral systems of innovation and production', Research Policy, vol.
31, pp. 247 -264
MALERBA, F., AND ORSENIGO, L. (1997), Technological Regimes and Sectoral
Patterns of Innovative Activities, Industrial and Corporate Change , vol. 6, pp. 83–117.
MALERBA, F., R.R. NELSON, L. ORSENIGO AND S. G. WINTER (1999)
"History-friendly” Models of Industry Evolution: The Computer Industry, Industrial Dynamics
and Corporate Change, vol. 8, pp. 1-36
MANTZAVINOS, C., NORTH, D.C. & SHARIQ, S. (2004) Learning, Institutions, and
Economic Performance Forthcoming, Perspectives on Politics, vol. 2, nº 1, 2004
MARCH, J. G. AND H. SIMON (1958), Organizations, Chichester, Wiley.
332
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

MARION F. (2004), Wonderful Balloon Ascents; or the Conquest of the Skies, Whitefish, MT,
Kessinger Publishing
MARDSEN, B. (2002), Watt’s Perfect Engine: Steam and the Age of Invention, New York,
Columbia University Press
MARSHALL A. (1890), Principles of Economics. Prometheus Books; Revised edition (mai
1997)
MASON C. (2006), Informal source of venture finance, in PARKER S., The Life Cycle of
Entrepreneurial Ventures, (International handbook series on entrepreneurship, vol. 3), Kluwer
MENARD C. (2004), L’économie des organisations, Paris, La Découverte
MERTON R., BARBER E. (2003), The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity, Princeton,
Princeton University Press
MEYER, D (2006) Networked machinists High technology industries in antebellum
America, Baltimore : John Hopkins University Press
MIDGLEY T. (2001) From the periodic table to production. Corona (CA), Stargazer
Publishing Company
MILLARD, A. (1990), Edison and the Business of Innovation, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins
University Press
MILLARD, ANDRE (1991) Thomas Edison and the Theory and Practice of Innovation,
Business and Economic History, 2ème série,vol. 20, pp.191-99
MILL, J.S. (1848), Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social
Philosophy. London: Longmans, Green and Co
MILL, J. (1948), Essays on some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, London, London
School of Economics, (originally written in 1836)
MILLER, J. A. (1965) Yankee Scientist, William David Coolidge, Mohawk Development
Service, 2ème édition
MOKYR J. (1990), The lever of the riches: technological creativity and economic progress, New
York and London, Oxford University Press
MOKYR, J. (2004) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton,
Princeton University Press.
MOWERY D.C. & ROSENBERG N. (1989), Technology and the Pursuit of Economic
Growth, Cambridge/New-York, Cambridge University Press
333
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

MOWERY, D.C. (1990), The economic history of technology. The development of
industrial research in U.S. manufacturing, AEA papers and proceedings, vol 80, nº 2, Mai 1990
MILTON MUELLER, (1997), Universal Service : Competition, Interconnection and Monopoly in
the Making of the American Telephone System, Cambridge (MA) MIT Press
MUELLER, W. (1962) The Origins of the Basic Inventions Underlying Du Pont's Major Product
and Process Innovations, 1920 to 1950 in NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMICS
(1962), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton
NEE, V. & SWEDBERG. R. (2005), The Economic Sociology of Capitalism, Alba, Princeton
University Press
NELSON R. R., SAMPAT B. N. (2001), Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping
economic performance, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol. 44, nº 1, pp. 31-54.
NELSON, R. R. AND S. G. WINTER (1977). In Search of More Useful Theory of
Innovation, Research Policy, nº 5, pp. 36-16.
NELSON, R.R., & WINTER, S. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
NELSON R., WINTER S. (2002), Evolutionary Theorizing, Economics Journal of Economic
Perspectives, vol. 16, nº 2, pp. 23-46, Spring 2002.
NELSON R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford University
Press, New York,
NOBLE, D. (1977) America by Design: Science, Technology and the Rise of Corporate
Capitalism, NY, Knopf
NORTH D. C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
NORTH D. C. (2005), Understanding the Process of Economic Change, Princeton, Princeton
University Press
NUVOLARI, A. (2004), “Collective Invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the
Case of the Cornish Pumping Engine”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, nº 28, pp. 347-363.
OSIRIS (1938), Studies on the History and Philosophy of Science and on the History of Learning
and Culture, Bruges, St. Catherine Press
PAVITT K. (1984), Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a
theory, Research Policy, vol. 13, pp. 343-373
PENROSE E.T. (1959), The theory of the growth of the firm, Oxford, Basil Blackwell
334
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

POLANYI K. (1944), The Great Transformation, Boston, Beacon Press, rééd. 2001
POLANYI M. (1962) Personal Knowledge Towards a Post Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge
REICH, LEONARD S. (1985) The Making of American Industrial Research: Science and
Business at GE and Bell, 1876–1926, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
RICHARDSON G.B. (1972), The organisation of industry, The Economic Journal, pp. 883-
896, septembre 1972
RIORDAN M. HODDESON L. (1998) Crystal Fire: The Invention of the Transistor and the
Birth of the Information Age , New York and London, W. W. Norton & Company
ROBERTS G. (2001), Josiah Wedgwood and innovation, Working Paper, Wedgwood
Museum
ROBERTSON P. LANGLOIS R. 1995. Innovation, networks, and vertical integration,
Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24 n°4, pp 543-562
ROSENBERG N. (1994) Exploring the black box. Technology, Economics and History, New
York / Londres, Cambridge University Press
ROSENBLOOM, R. KANTROW, A. (1982) The Nurturing of corporate research,
Harvard Business Review, janv./févr. 1982, pp. 115-123.
SABEL, Z. (2004) Neither modularity nor relational contracting: Inter-firm collaboration in
the new economy. Enterprise & society , vol. 5
SAMUELSON P. (1983), Foundations of economic analysis, Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press
SAXENIAN A. (1994), Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route
128, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press
SCHMIDT C. & ELGAR E. (1996) Uncertainty in economic thoughts, Cheltenham, Edward
Elgar Pub
SCHMOOKLER, J. (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
SCHOFIELD R. (1963), The Lunar Society of Birmingham: A Social History of Provincial Science
and Industry in Eighteenth-Century England, Oxford, Clarendon Press
SCHOFIELD R. (1997) The Enlightenment of Joseph Priestley A Study of His Life and Work
from 1733 to 1773, University Park, Pennsylvania State University
SCHUMPETER JOSEPH (1911) Théorie de l’évolution économique. Recherches sur le profit,
le crédit, l’intérêt et le cycle de la conjoncture. Paris: Dalloz
335
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1950), Capitalism. Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 2nd edition.
SCHUMPETER, JOSEPH A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process, New York, McGraw-Hill
SHACKLE, G.L.S. (1969), Decision, Order, and Time in Human Affairs, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press (2nde édition)
SHACKLE, G.L.S. (1972), Epistemics and Economics. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
SHANE, S. (2000). Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,
Organization Science, vol. 11, nº 4, pp. 448-469
SHAPIN S. (1995) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England,
Chicago, University Of Chicago Press
SHAPIN S. (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life ,
Princeton, Princeton University Press
SHURKIN J.(2006) Broken Genius: The Rise and Fall of William Shockley, Creator of the
Electronic Age, New York, MacMillan
SIMON H.A., EGIDI M., MARRIS R. & VIALE R. (1992) Economics, bounded rationality,
and cognitive revolution, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
SIMON H.A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality in LATSIS S.J. (Ed.) Method
and appraisal in economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SIMON H.A. (1998) Economics as Historical Science, Theoria, vol. 13, nº 32, pp. 241-260
SIMON H.A. (1983), Discovery, invention and development: Human creative thinking,
Proceedings. National Academy. Of Sciences., USA, vol. 80, pp. 4569-4571, juillet 1983
SIMONDON, G. (1958) Du Mode d’Existence des Objets Techniques. Paris, Aubier
SMILES S. (2006) Josiah Wedgwood - His Personal History, London, Read Books
SMITH A. (1776, 1976), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
SOBEK , D. K. & WARD, A. C. (1996) Principles from Toyota set-based concurrent
engineering process, Proceedings of The 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference, août 18-22, 1996, Irvine, California
SPENCE, M. (1973) Job Market Signaling, Quarterly Journal of Economics, nº 87, pp. 296-332.
336
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

STEELE L.W. (1988) What have learned Selecting R&D Programs and Objectives,
Research Technology Management, March-April 1988, pp1-36.
STEPTO, R. HORIE, K., KITAYAMA, T. ABE, A. (2003) Mission and challenges of
polymer science and technology, Pure Applied Chemistry., vol. 75, nº. 10, pp. 1359 - 1369
STIGLITZ, J. (2000) The contribution of the economics of information to 20th century
economics, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, novembre 2000
STOKES, D. (1997) Pasteur’s Quadrant, Washington, D.C., Brookings Institution Press.
STUART T., HOANG H., & HYBELS R.C. (1999) Interorganizational endorsements
and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 44, pp.
315-349.
TALEB N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York:
Random House
TAUSSIG F. W. (1900), The iron industry of the United States, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, vol. 14 , pp. 143-70 et 475-508
TEACH R. D., SCHWARTZ, R. G., & TARPLEY, F. A. (1989). The recognition and
exploitation of opportunity in the software industry: A study of surviving firms. In.
BROCKHAUS R. H et al. (Ed.) (1989), Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Wellesley,
MA: Babson College, pp. 383-397
TEECE. D. J. (1982), Towards an Economic Theory of the Multiproduct Firm, Journal of
Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 3, pp. 39-63.
TEECE D. J. (1996), Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation,
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 31, nº 2, pp. 193-224.
TEECE, D.J., PISANO, G. AND SHUEN, A. (1997), Dynamic capabilities and strategic
management, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, nº 7, pp. 509-33
THOMSON, R. (2004) From the old to the new: the social basis of innovation in the
antebellum United States, Business and Economic history on-line , vol 2
TOYNBEE, A. (1884). "Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England",
http://www.berkeleycentral.com/DrPseudocrytonym/TOYNBEE_Industrial Revolution.html.
TUSHMAN, M. L. (1977) Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process, Administrative
Science Quarterly, vol. 22, nº 4, pp. 587-605.
UDÉHN, LARS (2001) Methodological Individualism: Background, History and Meaning
London and New York: Routledge.
UGLOW J. (2002), Lunar men: the friends who made the future, Londres , Faber and Faber,
337
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

USHER, A. P. A. (1970) History of Mechanical inventions, Cambridge (MA), Harvard
University Press
USSELMAN, S. (2002) Regulating Railroad Innovation, Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press
VEYNE P. (1979), Comment on écrit l’histoire, Paris, Seuil
WEBER, M. (1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, 2 vols,
(translated from the German edition of 1921-1922 by G. Roth and C. Wittich), Berkeley:
University of California Press
WEBER M. (1905 - 2001), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, introduction by
KALBERG S., Roxbury Publishing
WEICK, W.W. & EAKIN, C.C. (2005), Independent inventors and innovation, an
empirical study, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and innovation, vol. 6, nº 1, février
2005
WERNERFELT, B. (1984) A Resource-Based View of the Firm, Strategic Management
Journal, vol. 12, pp. 75-94
WHITEHEAD A.N. (1925) Science and the Modern World, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
WHYTE W. H. (1956) The Organization Man, New York: Simon & Schuster
WILLIAMSON, O.E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free
Press
WILLIAMSON O.E. (1996), The mechanisms of governance, Oxford, Oxford University
Press
WILLIAMSON O. E. (2000), The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking
ahead, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 38, nº 3, pp. 595-613.
WISE, G., (1985) Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research.
New York, Columbia University Press
WOZNIAK, S. (1984), ‘Homebrew and how the apple came to be’ in THE LUNCH
GROUP & STEVE DITLEA (ed) (1984) Digital Deli: The comprehensive user-lovable menu
of computer lore, culture, lifestyles and fancy, New-York, Workman Publishing
YIN, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods (1st ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publishing.
338
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

ZAHRA AND GEORGE (2002), Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization,
and Extension, Academy of Management Review, vol. 27, nº 2, pp.185-203
ZENGER, T. LAZZARINI, S. POPPO, L. (2001) Informal and Formal Organization in
New Institutional Economics, Working papper
339
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008

340
The abilities of inventors - Les facultés de l’Inventeur, Hervé Legenvre 2008