Archivos de la categoría ‘casos’

Este pasado verano, leyendo el artículo de Jason P. Davis “Capturing the value of synchronized innovation” en la MIT Sloan Management Review (Summer 2013 / Volume 54 / Number 4), me he dado cuenta de que no habíamos dedicado un post de cierre en 2013 al proyecto OpenBasque en el blog.

Y es que es curioso como artículos, con mucha menos enjundia que muchos trabajos que por aquí hacemos, pueden acabar en santuarios como el de la MIT Sloan, mientras que muchos de nuestros desarrollos… se acaban perdiendo en el tiempo… como lágrimas en la lluvia (Roy Batty dixit). Por ello, este post está dedicado a hacer un breve inventario de lo realizado en OpenBasque.

Los objetivos básicos de este proyecto han sido los siguientes:

  • Desarrollar un modelo integral de innovación abierta que multiplique las posibilidades de creación de valor desde el punto de vista de la persona, la organización y el territorio y supere la práctica innovadora actual eminentemente endógena.
  • Definir escenarios y ámbitos de actuación concretos a través de los cuales se materializa el paradigma de la innovación abierta.
  • Desarrollar mecanismos, metodologías y herramientas de transformación que crean entornos que faciliten a las personas, a las empresas / organizaciones y al territorio generar valor a través de la co-creación.
  • Realizar experiencias piloto y adaptar la investigación a distintas realidades tanto empresariales como institucionales.

escenarios_OpenBasque

Para ello, partimos en cada escenario de aplicación (intra-organizacional, inter-organizacional, usuario, colectiva, territorio) de unos materiales elaborados como punto de partida (presentaciones), que a través de distintos workshops monográficos con las empresas participantes (CAF, Ederlan, Eroski, Euskaltel, Fagor-Hometek, Grupo Gureak, Obe-Hettich, Orbea, Orona) fuimos contrastando/validando/enriqueciendo.

Como resultado de este proceso elaboramos los siguientes documentos >>

El índice base de dichos documentos-escenario es el siguiente:

  1. Introducción
  2. Objeto, objetivos y metodología
  3. Conceptualización del escenario de innovación abierta correspondiente
  4. Elementos clave (recursos e incentivos, tecnologías, modelo de negocio, proceso de innovación, cultura)
  5. Casos prácticos
  6. Plan de acción (metodología para la constitución de la red de innovación abierta correspondiente)
  7. Taller con las empresas (workshop desarrollado y claves extraídas del mismo)

A continuación está incrustado el informe final de innovación abierta inter-organizacional desarrollado desde IK4-IKERLAN por Luis y por mí.

La última etapa del proyecto consistió en el diseño de una metodología ágil de intervención para innovar el modelo de negocio de un área de negocio, producto o servicio, de las empresas participantes en el proyecto, en base a las claves de la innovación abierta. Esta metodología, desarrollada por IK4-IKERLAN & MIK, y denominada business open innovation (BOI), se basa en tres elementos clave:

  • El conocido canvas de modelos de negocio definido por Osterwalder y Pigneur como punto de partida de modelado del negocio.
  • Epicentos de innovación provenientes de los distintos bloques conceptuales del canvas.
  • Catalizadores de innovación abierta de negocio; prácticas de innovación abierta extraídos de casos analizados durante la fase de investigación del proyecto Openbasque.

A continuación mostramos una presentación de la metodología BOI realizada por Luis para ISPIM 2013. Al final de la presentación brevemente  se recogen unas notas respecto a la implementación de la metodología por parte de IK4-IKERLAN en una de las empresas del consorcio OpenBasque >>

Una vez finalizado el proyecto OpenBasque, a mediados de este año 2013, ahora sólo nos queda lo más importante; poner en valor el importante conocimiento desarrollado en clave de transferencia a las empresas del entorno para hacerlas más innovadoras y competitivas en sus correspondientes sectores y mercados. En ello estamos!

Muchas gracias a todos los implicados en esta aventura llena de trabajo, ilusión y colaboración.

Eduardo Castellano y Luis Berasategi

Anuncios

Continuando la promoción de un espacio de intercambio de experiencias entre académicos e industriales en relación a la creación y gestión de redes colaborativas de empresas, se realizó por tercera vez dentro de la Conferencia Internacional PRO-VE 2011, una sesión especial dedicada a compartir prácticas exitosas de casos reales de redes colaborativas.

Las memorias de esta tercera sesión incluyen nuevas ideas y recomendaciones para mejorar las estrategias y prácticas administrativas actuales de diversas formas de redes colaborativas.

David Romero (ITESM)

Al hilo del título del post anterior, pero esta vez en clave de innovación-emprendizaje, este post va dedicado a una muy interesante iniciativa que se está desarrollando en el seno de la Corporación MONDRAGON: El BAC (Business Acceleration Center) MONDRAGON.  

Al más puro estilo Co-Society, el BAC, con las señas de identidad propias de la Corporación MONDRAGON, e impulsado desde el Centro de Promoción Corporativo, tiene como objetivo dar un salto cualitativo en la intensidad emprendedora como estrategia de transformación de MONDRAGON (+83.000 trabajadores).

El BAC de MONDRAGON es una estructura especializada destinada a dinamizar los procesos de lanzamiento de iniciativas empresariales en la Corporación MONDRAGON mediante el fomento de nuevos negocios generados a través de la intercooperación, siendo sus actividades principales:

  1. Prospectiva de espacios de oportunidad para nuevos negocios basados en la intercooperación.
  2. Orquestar la arquitectura de la participación, creando puentes entre las empresas comprometidas con el emprendizaje colaborativo.
  3. Identificación y captación de líderes para los proyectos interempresariales.
  4. Difusión de las actividades, la dinámica de trabajo y los resultados del emprendizaje colaborativo.
  5. Mecanismos de gestión del BAC y de sus proyectos

Dentro del marco de encuentros BAC, esta semana he tenido la suerte de asistir, desde Ikerlan-IK4, al encuentro DREAMWORKS del BAC de MONDRAGON sobre Centros de Emprendimiento. El mismo ha sido toda una escenificación de cómo un hub como el BAC puede facilitar conexiones improbables entre acciones y actores de diversa naturaleza (Universidad, Centros Tecnológicos, Empresas, Divisiones Sectoriales, Centros de Promoción, etc…), dando un sentido de coherencia y creando un ecosistema de personas que comparten una visión común; el emprendizaje en colaboración como proceso de transformación clave para afrontar con ilusión un presente-futuro de lo más retador.

Elkarbide es el lugar web donde seguir las iniciativas, de toda índole, que están orbitando alrededor de este apasionante ecosistema de innovación y emprendizaje llamado BAC de MONDRAGON. Allí nos vemos…

Eduardo Castellano

Esta Edición Especial en la revista “Production Planning & Control” presenta una excelente selección de 10 artículos que desarrollan diferentes conceptos, métodos y herramientas, así como modelos de negocio y casos de estudio, alrededor del tema de redes de innovación.

Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations; Volume 22, Issue 5 & 6, 2011

Artículos Originales:

Collaborative networked organisations and customer communities: value co-creation and co-innovation in the networking era (by David Romero; Arturo Molina)

  • Romero and Molina present an overview on network structures as a source of joint value creation and open innovation. The paper describes a literature review on value co-creation and co-innovation concepts and styles, and proposes a reference framework for creating ‘interface networks’ as enablers for linking networked organisations and customer communities to support the establishment of sustainable user-driven and collaborative innovation networks.

Improving distributed innovation processes in virtual organisations through the evaluation of collaboration intensities (by Jens Eschenbächer; Marcus Seifert; Klaus-Dieter Thoben)

  • Eschenbächer et al. present a collaborative network relationship analysis framework in their work – Improving Distributed Innovation Processes in Virtual Organisations through the Evaluation of Collaboration Intensities – as a strategic tool to study ‘collaboration intensities’ to support the management of distributed innovation processes in networked environments. The article includes a set of case studies to demonstrate the applicability of this tool in improving the distributed innovation processes that take place within virtual organisations.

How teams in networked organisations develop collaborative capability: processes, critical incidents and success factors (by Sebastian Ulbrich; Heide Troitzsch; Fred van den Anker; Adrian Plüss; Charles Huber)

  • Ulbrich et al. present a study on ‘collaborative capability’ of teams in networked organisations focusing on the capabilities of single organisations and on their group dynamics to identify six critical success factors for successful collaboration and network management in co-innovation processes. The study was carried-out in three networked organisations.

Extended competencies model for collaborative networks (by João Rosas; Patrícia Macedo; Luis M. Camarinha-Matos)

  • Rosas et al. undertakes the assessment of organisations’ hard and soft competencies in order to help networked organisations to find ‘competencies fitness’ to better select their network partners. The assessment tool is based on an extended competencies model that allows the construction of adjusted competencies profiles and levels to determine the competency requirements of collaboration opportunities such as co-innovation initiatives in industrial contexts.

On modelling evolution of trust in organisations towards mediating collaboration (by Simon Samwel Msanjila; Hamideh Afsarmanesh)

  • Msanjila and Afsarmanesh address the evolution of ‘trustworthiness’ as a way to raise the understanding of trust concept and its applicability to enhance and mediate collaboration among organisations. Their paper studies different trust models in organisations as well as the characterisation of the lifecycle of trust to establish fruitful collaborations, and introduces a trust management system as a tool to enhance and mediate trust evolution in collaborative innovation networks.

Supporting collaborative project management ( by Martin Ollus; Kim Jansson; Iris Karvonen; Mikko Uoti; Heli Riikonen)

  • Ollus et al. present an innovative approach for ‘collaborative project management’ focusing on the support of collaboration and communication in globally distributed projects. Their proposal includes a collaborative project management tool intended for supporting projects’ aims alignment and bridging the possible gaps that may exist within collaborative projects (e.g. co-innovation projects).

A balanced scorecard for measuring the impact of industry-university collaboration (by Ahmed Al-Ashaab; Myrna Flores; Athanasia Doultsinou; Andrea Magyar)

  • Al-Ashaab et al. introduce an adapted Balanced Scorecard as a measurement tool to assess the impact of collaborative research projects under an ‘open innovation strategy’.Their contribution proposes a scorecard model to measure the outcomes of collaborative research and presents two case studies of how companies are using this tool to measure their innovation outcomes.

Agile Business Models: an approach to support collaborative networks (by Leandro Loss; Servane Crave)

  • Loss and Crave explore the concept of the ‘agile business models’ for collaborative networks and identify the levers and barriers for developing innovative business models for co-innovation networks.

A comprehensive framework for collaborative networked innovation (by Luis Berasategi; Joseba Arana; Eduardo Castellano)

  • Berasategi et al. present an innovation framework including a reference model, a set of analysis tools and a methodology for implementing co-innovation processes within collaborative networks. The framework was developed based on the findings of an action research project carried out in real collaborative innovation networks.

Enhancing collaboration in communities of professionals using a Living Lab approach (by Steffen Budweg; Hans Schaffers; Rudolf Ruland; Kjetil Kristensen; Wolfgang Prinz)

  • Budweg et al. introduce a living lab approach focused on community building and active user involvement in the process of developing and evaluating new collaboration concepts and tools in user-centric and co-innovation networks. Their paper presents a valuable framework to facilitate innovation in collaborative work environments to enhance professional communities.

David Romero (ITESM)

Hope you enjoy it!

Kind regards,

Frank Piller (RWTH/MIT)

Al hilo del post escrito en el blog OpenBasque, sobre innovación abierta intra-organizativa

(video de la presentación en taller OpenBasque)

…a continuación van las claves de un Hack, y dos Moonshots. El primero de ellos metodiza, mientras que los otros dos complementan y redundan, respectivamente, algunos de los mecanismos comentados en la presentación. Los tres tips proceden de la comunidad Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) promovida por Gary Hamel.

HACK. Entrepreneur Employees: How to Innovate in Corporations

  • In many service industries, employees are happy doing their assigned work and believe that innovation is not required in their world. Many service firms have tried changing this idea by encouraging innovation and providing a platform to innovate and showcase. But, they have failed in one critical aspect. They have failed in making their employees realize the need to innovate.
  • Even in cases where the importance of innovation is communicated, innovation is inhibited due to one or all of the following reasons: Ignorance of the true value addition; Lack of perspective; Absence of significant incentives.
  • We believe that it is possible to instill in employees ‘a culture to innovate’ by equipping them with the following: Awareness; Opportunity; Ownership; Recognition.
  • In this hack, we suggest an experiment that will test our hypothesis. This experiment can be carried out on a small client account within the organization. To implement and test the hypothesis, the company must form a team called the ‘Innovation Team’, with a budgeted allowance to carry out the experiment.
  • The Innovation team will be provided with a timeline to implement the initiative (90 days). The timeline is divided as Ideation Phase, Review Phase, Evaluation and Selection Phase, the Development and Deployment phase and the Iteration Phase.
  • The Innovation team must select the ‘Xchange Panel’ that is instrumental in carrying out the experiment and incorporates people from different business functions: Delivery head/manager of the account; System architect and functional consultants; Representative from the Marketing team of the product or service which the account handles; Customer; Industry experts/Market Analysts.
  • The ‘Innovation team’ will help the panel to conduct the ‘Xchange forum’ and ‘Entrepreneur’s Forum’ effectively.

      

  • The ‘Xchange Forum’ is part of the Ideation Phase, where the different perspectives acquired are put to test. Role playing is one of the critical links in understanding the different perspectives. In these forums, the delivery team plays the role of the ultimate end-user and the Xchange panel plays the role of the immediate customer. In our illustration, the application delivery team plays the role of online banking customer and the Xchange panel role play as the bank… The success of the forum will be measured by arriving at broad areas of improvement, where profitable projects can be pursued, through discussion among the forum players.  The fund required to carry out these activities will be partly borne by the account and partly by the Innovation team.
  • The Entrepreneur’s Forum – Time to Transcend: Every team member, having realized the true value he/she is adding and with an added perspective of the end-user, will feel the need to innovate and would want to contribute more than the regular work. He/She, motivated by the exercise, comes up with ideas to delight the end-customers, which he/she can present to a panel, which plays the role of venture capitalists. The Entrepreneur’s Forum is part of the Evaluation and Selection Phase. The Development team member, now on called the Entrepreneur Employee, is required to build his own team of delivery and management and has to convince the VCs to fund their idea. The Xchange Panel evaluates the idea proposed based on parameters of group criteria: Feasibility (ease of development – conflicts with other projects – ease of implementation – client acceptability); Cost (project length – resources required – cash flow change); Value Addition (value difference – projected cash flows – intangible benefit – availability of substitutes).
  • In our experiment, the Innovation team and the Xchange Panel need to play a very crucial part in drafting the Idea Brief document. The employees may be motivated and could have found a new, exciting idea but equally important is to make it feasible by addressing all the concerns. The Project Management office will help the employees in identifying the budget and schedule considerations for the project to convert their idea into a business project. The output and success of the forum will be measured by the selection of a feasible project idea and formation of a delivery team with mentors.
  • Delivery and Beyond: The development team, along with the mentors, has to arrive at a detailed project schedule and work on the deliverable as part of the Development and Deployment phase. The team has to report to the Xchange panel regarding their milestone achievements periodically. The funds and other resources shall be allocated to the project team at each milestone achievement and after the satisfaction of the Xchange panel. Once the project is delivered successfully within the time frame, the team/organization can present it to the client, proving the value it will add to the end-customer.
  • At the end of the successful project completion, the Xchange Panel and the Innovation team should recognize the teams with organization-wide communication, best practices identification and other rewards.
  • Once the pilot project has been successfully implemented, the ‘Innovation Team’ should plan an organization-wide implementation. However, the roll-out should be done in a phased manner. This would help to address problems in a systematic way and help to develop a more robust system. This culture of innovation would slowly but surely be implanted in the working styles of the employees and our hypothesis would become a reality.

 This framework primarily aims at cultivating an environment of innovation, ownership and implementation in the service organizations. It creates the following positive impacts in the employees:

  •  The Need to innovate in a service organization with a business-to-business model
  • An arena to criticize their own services and create an end-user perspective
  • A sense of entrepreneurship among the employees and cultivating ownership among the employees
  • Motivation to ideate more and think beyond their current lines of work
  • While criticizing their work, the employees will realize the real value they are adding currently
  • Tangible benefits like financial gain & increased project contracts and intangible benefits like improved relationships both within and outisde the organizations

 Moonshot 1. Create internal markets for ideas, cash & talent

  •  “Organizations need a resource allocation process that more accurately mimics the selection pressures of a real market.”
  • Funding decisions in corporations are usually made at the top and are heavily influenced by political factors. That’s why companies over-invest in the past and underfund the future.
  • By contrast, resource allocation in a market-based system like the New York Stock Exchange is decentralized and apolitical. While markets are obviously vulnerable to short-term distortions, in the long run they’re better than big organizations at getting the right resources behind the right opportunities.
  • To make resource allocation more flexible and dynamic, companies must create internal markets where legacy programs and new projects compete on an equal footing for talent and cash.

 Moonshot 2. Enable communities of passion

  •  “Passion is a multiplier of human effort, but it can’t be manufactured. It’s present only when people get the chance to work on what they truly care about.”
  • Passion is a significant multiplier of human accomplishment, particularly when like-minded individuals converge around a worthy cause.
  • Yet a wealth of data indicates that most employees are emotionally disengaged at work. They are unfulfilled, and consequently their organizations underperform.
  • Companies must encourage communities of passion by structuring work and revising management processes to help people tap into a higher calling at work, by connecting employees who share similar passions, and by better aligning the organization’s objectives with the natural interests of its people.

Por cierto, para los más animados, recordad que el concurso MIX para presentar ideas y prácticas disruptivas en el ámbito del Management 2.0, patrocinado por la Harvard Business Review y McKinsey, está abierto hasta el 18 de julio.

 Eduardo Castellano

A diferencia de los Lead Users, cuyo punto de partida es tener una necesidad que todavía el mercado no ha sido capaz de satisfacer a través de productos-servicios comerciales, y por lo tanto, son dichos lead users los que crean sus propias soluciones técnicas para satisfacerla, la motivación de partida de los Hackers es diferente.

Según se puede extraer del post “Sobre FabLabs, HackerSpaces y demás Maker Spaces”, el punto de partida de los Hackers es básicamente la tecnología. Les encanta trastear y cacharrear, construir nuevos artilugios mecatrónicos a partir de componentes desechados de otros gadgets, son unos “manitas” technology-push.

Unos manitas que en los últimos tiempos han ido construyendo “garajes colectivos” llamados HackerSpaces donde poder dar rienda suelta a su creatividad con otros colegas de hobbie.   

La revista MAKE es un popular lugar de encuentro de muchos de ellos donde muestran lo que se puede sacar de unos recursos escasos y mucho ingenio. 

Antes de cerrar el post quiero volver a refrescar una clave de la reflexión a-bote-pronto del post “Sobre FabLabs, HackerSpaces y demás Maker Spaces;

  • La creación de un espacio de encuentro entre Lead Users (need-pull) y Hackers (technology-push) como fuente de desarrollo de prototipos funcionales que responden a necesidades no cubiertas existentes, más tarde convertibles en productos-servicios comerciales: LUCK Garage

A mí me sigue sonando de lo más prometedor!

Eduardo Castellano