1. How has 3M's innovation process evolved since the company was founded? Answer: • 3M's innovation process has typically been an area of ​​focus for senior management. The company had adopted a hands-off attitude towards product developers who in turn worked towards innovation accordingly. Along with the technicians, each team had a process engineer to ensure the product was made efficiently. The entire team was at no risk if the product failed.• Product developers used to visit factories and workplaces to talk to workers and get ideas for products.• Developers were not given the share of royalties on the product as the company believed that innovation was driven by pure love for it. But developers were encouraged through various means, such as innovation awards and grants for innovative projects.• There was also a dual ladder approach that provided senior technicians with great career opportunities to advance without moving into management.• Over the years 1990s as innovation was stagnant, most innovations were about extending existing product lines, management came up with a protocol that 30% of 3M's revenues should come from innovative products that didn't exist four years ago . • To address the challenge that the company's workforce faced, change their approach to work. Some people in the Medical Products department have moved on to a process called “Lead User Research.” After the process made this division successful, it was successfully applied to other divisions.2. How does the Lead User research process differ and integrate with other traditional market research methods? Answer: The “Lead User”…middle of paper……saves approximately $100 million in annual sales. The alternatives presented after core user research were qualified by us primarily on the basis that they provided a breakthrough innovation and were not simply line extensions of the existing product and technology itself. We therefore discarded the first three alternatives, as they are simple line extensions and can be created with existing 3M technology. They can never be considered a breakthrough innovation, despite being commercially viable and 3M having access to the $2 billion market as a third alternative. We need radical innovation which can only be delivered through the fourth alternative, where we need a change in strategy “crossing boundaries”. This alternative gives us that innovative and elusive product that the business unit has been looking for for a decade.