Challenge 2005 and beyond: recognition, transformation, and profitable use of innovative thinking.

In the opening years of the new millennium, we are witnessing the creation of a "cult of innovation." The word is on everyone's lips, and nowhere more so than in board rooms and executive offices of the world's great business enterprises. Innovation is something that every business values and wishes to create; yet it is a concept that often defies definition. It is not uncommon for a group of knowledgeable individuals to disagree not only about the value of innovation, but also about the meaning of innovation. One person's "innovation" can be another's "product or process improvement" (e.g., Gillette's new M3Power[TM] vibrating blade razor--innovation or product improvement?) and the ensuing dialogue frequently raises questions not only about the nature and definition of innovation, but also about the way in which innovation is used to create something useful and market-friendly. The perceived value of new concepts and inventions quite often colors whether they are seen as innovations, or whether they are seen as intellectual and/or laboratory curiosities. Moreover, concepts and inventions that might be deemed to be "innovative" (i.e., having value) at "Point Y" in history may not have been seen that way at "Point X" 20 years earlier. Innovations, consequently, are often declared retrospectively--many years may pass between the initial cognitive output and the recognition that it either represented, or was transformed into, an innovation. There are periods of time, however, when the process of "innovative thinking" is much more important than the actual creation of true innovations, and we are in such a period. It is this broad concept--the recognition, transformation, and profitable use of innovative thinking--which is discussed in this article.

Keywords: UV, EB radiation cure, coil coatings, biofouling/antifouling, service life prediction, weatherability, cool roofing, coil, solvent-free, super-critical, aluminum, galvanized steel, alloy coated steel

**********

Innovation. Such a simple word. Such a powerful image. Such a complex concept. It is the altar at which many worship, and the pagan idol which others disdain. For some individuals, corporate cultures, and even entire industries, innovation is their lifeblood--the force which harnesses the concept of "creative destruction," first enunciated by the great 20th Century economist, Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), (1,2) and which keeps them alive, well, and competitive. For others, it represents all that is fickle, frightening, and fruitless. For some, it provides fame and riches; for others, it is naught but a resource drain. The concept of innovation--and the intellectual, emotional, cultural, and economic considerations and images that it invokes--takes us into complicated territory, indeed.

What, however, has innovation to do with the paint and coatings industry--an industry which few people, answering off the top of their heads, would characterize as "innovative"? The equivocal answer, I believe, is "both a little and a lot," depending upon the marketplace and the timing. That we have seen, over the past half century or so, many significant innovations in the coatings industry--latex house paint, powder coatings, fluoropolymers, the electrodeposition process, solid block paint, UV coatings, the concept of group transfer polymerization (GTP), and a handful of others--is undeniable, and several have provided the catalyst for paradigm shifts. A few others had the attributes of a succes d'estime, but without parallel economic value or popular success, at least at the time of their introduction. (Powder coatings in the 1950s and supercritical fluid applications of liquid coatings in the late 1980s come immediately to mind.) Virtually all of the paint industry's truly innovative products, however, had one thing in common: they were, by and large, the products of well-fueled, well-staffed central research laboratories which were either run by the coatings companies themselves, or in partnership with either technical universities or other companies (generally customers or suppliers) which supported significant R & D capability. "True epochal technology shifts are sometimes incomprehensible until after they've occurred" (3) and, for the lion's share of the last century, the coatings industry understood and embraced the truth of these words. True innovation--the stuff of legends, from which game-changing, paradigm-shifting strategies are borne--is proactive rather than reactive; it involves a process of creation and discovery, rather than just a response to problems with solutions. (4) True innovation thrives in a relatively relaxed atmosphere where inquiring minds are encouraged to be guided by their curiosity, and are provided with appropriate intellectual, instrumental, and personnel resources to enable them to give form to the fruits of their curiosity. In the past, the "central research laboratory" concept was so powerfully embedded in the culture of most major corporations, that it would have been unthinkable to plan for the future without reliance upon the help of a "think tank" to create the conceptual basis and platform science for the products and processes that would make that future possible. Such central R & D organizations were generally removed from the day-to-day exigencies involved in running the business. This was good, because it allowed them to bring intense focus to both market-led and technology-led concepts--new concepts involving new chemistry, new procedures, new attitudes, and (quite often) even new points of view. Thirty years ago, the value of such organizations was clearly understood to be a priori--they clearly had value, even though it was generally difficult to trace the exact provenance of such value through the chain of custody, from initial concept, through basic R & D and proof of principle, to applied R & D, onward to development and customer/coatings laboratory interactions, and finally to commercial products or processes. It simply made good sense to people in earlier eras that, in order to secure the future, one had to take action in the present. To quote the late Marco Wismer, "A product has to be developed before it's needed, because by the time it's needed, it's too late." (5)

The Minnesota Mining Company opened its Central Research Laboratories in 1937, and became the most innovative company in history. Nearly 70 years, and several reorganizations later, 3M's innovations are still the envy of the world and they still employ a so-called "corporate research laboratory" model. While not quite the same as a "central R & D laboratory," it's close enough--even to the point of allowing 3M researchers 15% of their time for "creative, independent thinking." (6) With the passage of time, however--and the consolidation of corporate entities, compression of pricing models, the desire for faster "conception-to-market" protocols, and the decentralization of major coatings industry players--pressure was applied by virtually all coatings producers to both trace and quantify the value-added component that central R & D activities contributed to the corporate bottom line, via the operating incomes of the newly-decentralized structures (business units, operating companies, etc.). Unfortunately, this is a nearly impossible task, but a lot is at stake. Writing in The Chemist, Anthony O'Lenick Jr. reminds us that, "as new products and processes are added to a firm's assets, intellectual property is created. Although they do not generally appear on the balance sheet, product management and commercial exploitation of such property has a dramatic effect upon a company's profitability." (7) Regrettably, this message was not always perceived or understood as the great coatings companies either disappeared as a result of consolidation, or grew and flourished as a result of the same consolidation. Virtually all that survived underwent some form of re-invention, as the baby boomers hit that age where their retirement plans began to place increasing demands on the earnings potential of the stocks in their portfolios. Because large companies are complicated creatures, the actions taken to maximize value for the stockholders took many forms, some unique to a given organization, some in common with virtually all others in a similar industry. None, however, were enacted with such swift certainty as the eradication of the "central R & D" concept--and none held as much potential to alter the face of the coatings industry for generations to come. Industry historians will one day note, undoubtedly with more than just a passing touch of irony, that just as the Brundtland Report (8) was bringing international focus to the concept of "sustainable development," with its implied need for significant innovative research, the U.S. coatings industry was beginning to show the earliest signs that innovative research would not be a high priority during the decades ahead.

We are now completing our first decade, more or less, as an industry that is essentially bereft of the central research concept, and it is a good time to be asking ourselves, "How are we doing?" The answers, and there are at least as many as there are coatings companies, probably range from "just fine" to "waiting for the next shoe to drop." So much depends upon how any given organization is dealing with the demise of the central R & D concept, and how it is addressing the combination of current--and perceived future--needs with which all manufacturers are daily bombarded.

At a recent meeting, Prof. Dr. R.A.T.M. van Benthem of Eindhoven Technical University stated that, "the entire Coatings community is suffering from a lack of innovation," (9) a sentiment which he distilled from a major address given at the University on 12 March, 2004, and which was published shortly thereafter. (10) Prof. van Benthem's succinct phrasing is unique to him, but the thought that he expressed--that the global coatings industry is basically treading water--is not. Beginning with Marco Wismer's Mattiello lecture in 1989 (11) and increasing in urgency to this very day, this has been the concern of many farsighted individuals within the coatings industry who are genuinely concerned about the future--a future which is unlikely to be built upon a foundation of great innovations. There will be a future, however; that much is certain. Equally certain is that the need for paint and coatings, or for other products and concepts that supply the aesthetic and protective properties of paint and coatings, is not going to go away in the years ahead. Given the dearth of basic and applied R & D efforts within the industry, however--the R & D efforts which have, in the past, led to so many of the real innovations--what can we do to assure a future in which we will have the concepts, processes, and products that the next generation will need?

The answer, I think, is that we must explore, more fully than ever, our capability of performing innovative thinking, which is somewhat different from "creating innovations." Yes, innovative thinking is often the progenitor of innovations, but this is by no means always the case. Genuine game-changing innovations are typically the brain children of scientists with advanced degrees, working in a true research environment--but the process of innovative thinking is by no means confined to such environments. It can (and does) occur anywhere and everywhere--in development laboratories, marketing offices, and production facilities of coatings and equipment manufacturers, raw material and equipment suppliers, colleges and universities, et al. In fact, innovative thinking is all around us, but--without a culture that recognizes its value and acts upon its potential--it goes for little. Creating such a culture is the key. The great R & D laboratories and "think tanks" of the past will eventually return to the coatings industry, albeit undoubtedly in some modified form, but it will not be anytime soon--and no one can afford to sit idly by, waiting for the "pendulum to swing the other way." For the foreseeable future, serious players in the coatings industry must recognize the importance of innovative thinking, create cultures which encourage innovative thinking, and then transform the fruits of such thinking into products and services of practical value. Technology, regardless of how innovative, has little intrinsic value unless those factors that make it innovative can be transformed into characteristics that make it desirable and profitable, as well. We must, therefore, be able to transform thought into action with a vengeance--we must be able to recognize innovative thinking, then transform it into practical, profitable products, processes, and services. This is so easy to state, yet so difficult to accomplish. Nonetheless, this is a common sense concept of vital importance to the future prosperity of the coatings industry, and should be dismissed as "undo-able" at one's peril.

Some of the splashiest and most profitable "innovations" of recent years have been nothing of the kind--but they have been absolutely splendid examples of innovative thinking which has been recognized and then transformed into practical and profitable concepts, products, and services. Witness, for example, what happened when Frito-Lay changed the shape of its corn chips to create a "scoop-shape"--sales and profits improved because, according to The Economist, the design change "allowed consumers to scoop-up their guacamole or salsa dip and place relatively more of it in their mouth, and less on their rugs." (12) This same article went on to note that, in the recent past, "most of the companies that have created truly extraordinary amounts of wealth have done so by unveiling great processes, not great products. Dell, Toyota, and Wal-Mart, for example, have risen to the top of their respective industries by coming up with amazingly efficient ways of getting quite ordinary products into the hands of consumers more cheaply than their rivals." (13)

Somewhat closer to home, only about five percent of the residential roofing marketplace in North America benefits from the advantages of using metal roofing materials--advantages which became all too clear in 2003, when forest fires raged through the western United States, and the public witnessed graphic media images of metal-roofed homes standing essentially untouched right next door to traditionally-roofed homes that had been burned completely to the ground. This has been a "market waiting to happen" for the metal roofing industry, and it has discovered, over the past five years or so, that innovative thinking, in the form of a different point of view, is rapidly transforming our mental image of metal roofing materials from being nominally aesthetic (they look OK) and nominally functional (they keep rain out) to being both highly aesthetic (they look great) and extremely functional (they last "forever," reduce energy costs, and are fire-retardant). The advent of "Cool Roofing Coatings" in the past few years is also creating significant new value-added opportunities for the metal roofing marketplace, both industrial and residential. Increasing concerns about urban heat island effects, and the concomitant increase in pollution levels and energy costs, are not confined just to the South Coast of California--major urban areas throughout the country are evaluating the potential of Cool Roofing Coatings to help address the situation by increasing the amount of reflected infrared radiation from traditional painted metal roofs and dramatically increasing the thermal emittance compared to bare metal roofing. (14) This has been made possible because the coatings industry, principally the manufacturers of the coil coatings which are almost exclusively preferred on metal roofing materials, have been able to look at traditional products, made with long-available raw materials, using standard manufacturing procedures, "in a different light." This different light is infrared radiation, and--once viewed in this light--our mental picture of the role of coatings for metal roofing was changed forever. A great innovation? Certainly not. An incremental innovation? Not really.... An excellent example of innovative thinking by the pigment suppliers and coatings manufactures working in harmony with each other? Absolutely!

At this point, the reader may well be thinking, "This is all well and good, but how do individuals and organizations suddenly acquire the knack for innovative thinking? Isn't this the Marketing/Technical/Sales (take your pick) Department's job? What effect can I (we) have?" It is a good question, asked by all of us at one or more points in our careers, and it has only one answer: innovative thinking can produce significant results regardless of its source, but it is most likely to have really far reaching benefits when it results from truly integrated team efforts--and the broader and more interdisciplinary those teams are, the better. This is somewhat easier in smaller organizations, and commensurately more difficult in larger organizations--hence the reputation that smaller companies have historically acquired for being "fast on their feet." Properly done, however, large organizations have exactly this same potential, and--given the extent and diversity of their scientific, technical, engineering, production, marketing, and sales resources--should have a proportionally greater number of opportunities available to them.

The ability to leverage innovative thinking, catalyzed by access to multiple technology bases, and viewed through the eyes of those skilled in markets and market needs (particularly unarticulated needs), is a powerful tool which is too seldom used effectively, when used at all. Does it have to be this way? Certainly not. During the past 10 years, we have seen some superb examples of the application of innovative thinking, such as Dr. Ray A. Dickie's publication of "Chemical Paradigm for Study of Paint Durability," (15) Dr. Robert F. Brady Jr.'s work with nontoxic marine coatings, (16) Dr. John F. Gardon and Dr. Frederick H. Walker's work with etch-resistant coatings based on polyurethane polyols, (17) and other examples too numerous to cite here. We know, therefore, that it can be done. Each organization, however, must decide for itself how to take advantage of the inherent creativity within its own ranks, and extend participation in the process to selected raw material suppliers, customers, and institutions of higher learning. It is neither possible nor practical to discuss the process of creating and fostering a culture of innovative thinking within the scope of this article--there are, however, some excellent books which have been written on this subject, including especially fine ones by R.B. Tucker, entitled, Driving Growth Through Innovation, (18) and an interesting "take" on Schumpeter by C.M. Christensen and M.E. Raynor, entitled The Innovater's Solution, (19) both of which the reader is encouraged to explore. There is also a tantalizing introduction to "Unified Structured Innovative Thinking," written by E.N. Sickafus, available on the web. (20) My only additional comment on the "how to" aspect of the innovative thinking process is that "silos" (strict segregation of business elements, such as technical, sales, marketing, etc., into separate departments) do not work. Period. I am not prepared to comment further, beyond this good advice, on the process ...

... I am, however, prepared to comment on what the potential for innovative thinking within the coatings industry might include, down the road. Transforming the "interesting" into the "essential" opens up a world of opportunities and possibilities for those organizations willing to create a culture that fosters innovative thinking. There are certain areas of inquiry that may hold tremendous potential, if they can be harnessed and placed into service in the coatings industry. One thinks immediately of the possibilities inherent in the control of both new and traditional coatings components at the nanoscale level--an area of science that is opening up new horizons before our very eyes, and promises to be to the 21st Century what the Industrial Revolution was to the 19th. (21,22) Who knows what new properties the creative harnessing of nanoscale materials might bring to the world of paint and coatings? Is it possible that we will finally reach the holy grail of precoated appliance coatings--extreme flexibility, coupled with the hardness, abrasion resistance, and chemical resistance of porcelain? Possibly, but we will not know until we try. Halfway through the first decade of the Third Millennium, environmental challenges abound on a global basis. We can try to react to these new challenges, and to the subsequent government demands deemed necessary to address them, by frantically seeking familiar products and processes which can be modified to meet the new requirements, or we can attempt to engage our colleagues and ourselves in an innovative thinking process that may very well result in products or processes which do far more than just "meet requirements." The work of Prof. Frank Jones (23) and his colleagues at Eastern Michigan University suggests that solvent-free coatings hold significant promise for the future, if industry can connect effectively with academia, and transform its fundamental concepts and platform science into products that can be easily manufactured and taken into the marketplace in a convenient, user-friendly form. Energy curing systems, including UV and electron beam (EB) curable coatings, already enjoy widespread success on paper, plastic, and wood products--but what about on metal? Commercial viability has already been established, (24) so it will be innovative thinking leading to incremental innovation, rather than basic R & D efforts leading to a new innovation, that will provide the answer. How about the emerging field of sol-gel/ceramers? The innovation phase is behind us--now it is time for innovative thinking to take the bull by the horns and decide how to use such materials practically and profitably. What about a self-stratifying coating (25) that might enable the application of primer and topcoat in a single step? Self-cleaning coatings that keep the barnacles at bay on oceangoing vessels, or--even better--coatings that do not let the barnacles (or other seafaring hitch hikers) attach themselves to the hull to begin with? Self-healing coatings? Coatings based on hyperbranched/dendrytic polymers? Increasing interest in antimicrobial coatings? (26) What about the plentiful coatings-related applications implicit in the on-going research with inherently (intrinsically) conductive polymers (ICPs)? Is it possible that we might be able to improve the appearance or performance properties of coatings by processing them in nontraditional ways--perhaps using high-energy cavitational forces to disperse pigments? (27) The list is long and demanding, but by no means out of reach. Through the open-minded and expert application of some combination of true innovation, incremental innovation, and innovative thinking, with emphasis on the latter, all of the foregoing are possible, and all hold the promise of practical, profitable products and processes.

The way forward for the global coatings industry, as it approaches the year 2005 and beyond, is three-fold:

True Innovation -- While not likely to arise frequently, at least in a game-changing way in the current resource-challenged R & D atmosphere of the coatings industry, there is a small amount of basic, and a somewhat larger amount of applied, R & D taking place in academia, government laboratories, and, to a lesser extent, within the ranks of industry. One thinks immediately of the work being undertaken by Dr. Jonathan W. Martin and his colleagues at NIST (28,29) on service life prediction of polymeric materials, which is one of the very few on-going research projects in the entire field of coatings that holds the promise of a paradigm-shifting outcome. Because such important projects are increasingly rare, they must be embraced and supported to the fullest extent of available resources. The fact that such work is taking place should be routinely made known to the development laboratories within the coatings industry, so that they can don their "innovative thinking" caps long before the basic and applied scientists have established "proof of principle" and are ready to release their work. This can only happen, however, when industrial scientists have both the knowledge and education necessary to communicate in a meaningful way with government and academic scientists, and can then act as interpreters to the corporate technology and marketing teams. This, in turn, is only of value if the scientists and technologists in the development laboratories have access to appropriate types and amounts of information, via conferences, symposia, workshops, and published materials that discuss the basic research projects in question.

Incremental Innovation -- Largely accomplished at the applied, rather than the basic, R & D level, incremental (albeit significantly profitable) innovation can be fostered by giving R & D scientists as much freedom as possible to explore new concepts, products, processes, etc., provided by raw material suppliers, which are daily bringing such things to the marketplace. Writing in the European Coatings Journal, Mark Brockaert emphasized that "innovation is key in driving profitability for customers," (30) then went on to discuss the importance of teamwork between raw material suppliers and their customers. I strongly support this approach, but stress that coatings scientists and technologists should also be given as much access as possible to outside technical meetings and seminars, such as those presented at the International Coatings Expo (ICE)--and also to basic and applied R & D papers presented at such international scientific gatherings as the Gordon Conference on the Chemistry and Physics of Coatings and Films, meetings of the American Chemical Society's Polymeric Materials: Science and Engineering (PMSE) and Polymer Science (POLY) Divisions, and the upcoming Coatings Science International meeting, which will be held in the Netherlands in June of 2005.

Innovative Thinking -- Members of the Technical, Marketing, and Production teams of all businesses in the coatings industry should take as many opportunities as possible to meet and participate with both their customers and their suppliers to discuss "what's new" and "what's needed." Only by working as teams will sufficient synergy be generated so that the light bulb will go on, and products, services, and situations can be seen in a new light--a light that will illuminate value-added opportunities. There are numerous underutilized raw materials available ("micro-mirror" or "PVDA Pigments" come to mind, (31) as do graphite, liquid crystals, nanoscale materials, polymers made from renewable resources, ICPs and a host of others), and--working together in multidisciplinary teams--innovative thinkers will utilize such materials to create new, value-added coatings that will make their mark in a receptive and grateful marketplace. Attendance at general coatings shows, as well as at more specific industry meetings and market segment events should be encouraged, because nothing happens in a vacuum, and few things stimulate the process of innovative thinking more than exposure to "what's happening" outside of the factory, laboratory, and marketing office walls. I would address any management concerns about "too much time away from the bench" (desk, office, etc.) by asking the simple question: "Where else can your technical, engineering, production, and marketing employees become exposed to such a broad range of materials, equipment, and services, and find such a diverse and knowledgeable array of people with whom to interact and discuss what's on display?" For those managers who are worried that, if they spend money to educate their employees, they will only go elsewhere, I counter with the cold, clear truth that your selfish attitude has already driven them away--you just don't know it yet. A well-educated, well-paid, and continually-challenged employee is almost always a loyal, productive, curious, and creative employee--one with the capacity for the critically important innovative thinking which will be the primary lifeblood of our industry for at least the next decade.

There really are no options--the way into the future is clear: companies which foster a culture that encourages and rewards innovative thinking, and then transform that innovative thinking into practical and profitable products, processes, and services by concerted efforts of the entire organization, will ultimately determine the future of the coatings industry. Innovative thinking is the product of a business culture, not a "program of the month" or a passing fad. It is THE WAY FORWARD, and it will be well worth whatever effort it takes. Exciting days lie ahead in the coatings industry for those willing to acknowledge that change is upon us, and to alter their business culture so that they are in a better position to recognize and encourage innovative thinking, and are then able to transform it into the products, processes, and services of the future.

Presented at the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Federation of Societies for Coatings Technology, Chicago, IL, Oct. 27-29, 2004.

References

(1) Schumpeter, J., Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, 1934.

(2) Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper & Brothers, 1942.

(3) Owen, D., "Making Copies," Smithsonian, 35 (5), p. 96 (2004).

(4) Matko, S.P., Private correspondence, 23 August, 2004.

(5) Wismer, M., "Learning to Leap: Rising to the Technical Challenge of Today's Coatings Industry," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 62, No. 780, 86 (1990).

(6) 3M News Release, Campbell, P., Chief Financial Officer, 5 November, 2003.

(7) O'Lenick, A.J., Jr., "Managing Intellectual Property or Getting More than a Penny for Your Thoughts," The Chemist, March/April, p. 17 (2001).

(8) Brundtland, G.H. (Ed.), Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, 1987.

(9) van Benthem, R.A.T.M., Private correspondence, 9 June, 2004.

(10) van Benthem, R.A.T.M., "Coatings Technologie--Laat de Toekomst Uit de Verf Komen," Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, 12 March, 2004, p. 5 (ISBN: 90-386-1233-8; www.tue.nl/bib).

(11) Wismer, M., Op.cit., pp. 83-88.

(12) "Less Glamour, More Profit," The Economist, 371 (8372) p. 11 (2004).

(13) Ibid.

(14) Cocuzzi, D.A. and Pilcher G.R., "Cool Roofing: A Really Hot Topic," JCT COATINGSTECH, 1, No. 4, 22-29 (2004).

(15) Dickie, R.A., "Chemical Origins of Paint Performance," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 66, No. 834, 29-37 (1994).

(16) Brady, R.F., Jr., "Clean Hulls Without Poisons: Devising and Testing Nontoxic Marine Coatings," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 72, No. 900, 45-56 (2000).

(17) Gardon, J.L., "Polyurethane Polyols: Ester-Bond Free Resins for High Solids Coatings," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 65, No. 819, 25-33 (1993).

(18) Tucker, R.B., Driving Growth Through Innovation, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 2002.

(19) Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M.E., The Innovator's Solution, Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

(20) www.u-sit.net.

(21) Schultz, W., "Nanotechnology: The Next Big Thing," Chem. Eng. News, 78 (18), 41-47 (2000).

(22) Ainsworth, S. J., "Nanotech IP," Chem. Eng. News, 82 (15), pp. 17-22 (2004).

(23) Jones, F.N., "Toward Solventless Liquid Coatings," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 68, No. 852, 25-36 (1996).

(24) Pilcher, G.R., "Meeting the Challenge of Radical Change: Coatings R & D as We Enter the 21st Century," JOURNAL OF COATINGS TECHNOLOGY, 73, No. 921, 135-143, (2001). Also in Adler, H.-J.P. and Patje-Kamloth, K. (Eds.), Quo Vadis Coatings, Wiley VCH Verlag GmbH + Co. KgaA, pp. 1-5, 2002.

(25) Rassing J., "Coatings Developments for the New Millennium," ECCA Conference Transcript, 22-23 November, 1999.

(26) Topping, D., "Antimicrobial Surfaces for Appliances," Appliance Engineer, p. 23 (May 2004).

(27) Limbacher, K., "Pigment Dispersion," Paint & Coatings Industry, pp. 82-85 (July 2004).

(28) Bauer, D.R. and Martin, J.W. (Eds.), Service Life Prediction of Organic Coatings: A Systems Approach, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 722, Oxford Press, 1999.

(29) Martin, J.W. and Bauer, D.R. (Eds.), Service Life Prediction Methodology and Metrologies, Oxford Press, New York, 2001.

(30) Brockaert, M., "Innovation is Key," Eur. Coat. J., 03/04, p. 21 (2004).

(31) "Micro MIRROR--Special Aluminum Pigments in the Packaging and Label Market," European Coatings Show, Ink Makers' Forum, 9-10 April, 2004.

George R. Pilcher -- Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc.*

* P.O. Box 489, Columbus, OH 43216-0489.