Posts etiquetados ‘Henry Chesbrough’

Following the wake of the previous post, you can find below a selection of 2013’s relevant Open Innovation reports.

1.  Open Innovation Market Study, 2013 Edition

2013_open_innovation_market_studyThis RWTH-TIM’s open innovation study explores the market of open innovation accelerators (OIA); organizations that help their clients to include external experts in all stages of an innovation project.

Open innovation today has become a core tool in innovation management. But which is the right method for open innovation? Which are the criteria to plan an open innovation project? Which intermediary or service provider has specific knowledge and expertise in, e.g., crowdsourcing, the lead user method, netnography, idea contests, technology scouting, or broadcast search? This totally updated 2013 edition report provides a comprehensive analysis of the providers and platforms for open innovation.

We take a detailed look on the methods, cost, project and community structures, and market size. Our purpose is to support strategic decisions when planning an open innovation venture. Managers will gain an overview of the intermediaries available for open innovation and will get advice how to identify partners for their project.

We invited more than 160 intermediaries to join our survey investigating the OIA’s business model and environment, productivity, services offered, project specifics, and characteristics of their participant pool. In addition, we asked about estimates for the development of the open innovation market. Besides a lot of highly interesting findings about the market for open innovation in general and the intermediary’s role in it, we were also able to compile 188 detailed accelerator profiles.

Futher info about this report can be found at:

 

2. Leading Open innovation >> New edited MIT book on co-creation and open innovation

Leading Open innovationIn today’s competitive globalized market, firms are increasingly reaching beyond conventional internal methods of research and development to use ideas developed through processes of open innovation (OI). Organizations including Siemens, Nokia, Wikipedia, Hyve, and Innosabi may launch elaborate OI initiatives, actively seeking partners to help them innovate in specific areas. Individuals affiliated by common interests rather than institutional ties use OI to develop new products, services, and solutions to meet unmet needs.

Leading Open Innovation describes the ways that OI expands the space for innovation, describing a range of OI practices, participants, and trends. The contributors come from practice and academe, and reflect international, cross-sector, and transdisciplinary perspectives. They report on a variety of OI initiatives, offer theoretical frameworks, and consider new arenas for OI from manufacturing to education.

3. Berkeley-Fraunhofer Study on Open Innovation

Berkeley-Fraunhofer Study on Open InnovationOur collegues of Fraunhofer IAO and University of Berkeley (Henry Chesbrough and Sabine Brunswicker) have surveyed large firms in the US and in Europe about whether or not they actually practice open innovation. The results are very interesting. Here are some key findings:

  • Among companies with sales larger than $250 million annually, 78% practice open innovation
  • Among those companies, 71% report that top management support for these activities are growing
  • 82% of firms report that open innovation is more actively practiced now, compared to three years ago
  • None of the companies in the survey have abandoned open innovation as of now.

 

As another evidence of the relevance of the Open Innovation concept worldwide, you can just see the last fall issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review >> Special Report  on Leveraging External Innovation.

Finally, all those interested in these topics would really enjoy the meetings we are preparing for our next World Conference on Mass Customization, Personalization, and Co-Creation [MCPC 2014] at Aalborg University. See you there!

Frank Piller (RWTH/MIT)

The full conference program of the MCPC 2011 has been released.

In addition to hundreds of CEOs, Founders, Directors, and Practice Leaders of the companies that apply and support mass customization, customer co-creation and open innovation successfully, many of the world’s leading researchers in these areas will present latest findings in an accessible way. Some of the presenters involved:

  • Henry Chesbrough (Professor of UC Berkeley)
  • Frank Piller (Professor of RWTH/MIT)
  • Kent Larson (MIT Media Lab)
  • Joseph Pine (Strategic Horizons)
  • Chris Anderson (Wired Magazine)
  • Ashish Chatterjee (Director of Connect+Develop at Procter & Gamble)
  • Andy Zygna (CEO of Nine Sigma)
  • John Jacobsen (Head of Engineering at Quirky)
  • Derek Elley (CEO of Ponoko)
  • Nik Pinkston (Founder of Cloudfab)
  • Mark Hatch (CEO of TechShop)
  • Cathy Benko (Vice Chairman and Chief Talent Officer of Deloitte U.S. Firms)
  • And many more representants from Threadless, Ford Motor Corp, Reebok…

The interactive conference format of the MCPC 2011, supported by the proximity to the Silicon Valley / Bay Area entrepreneurship and investment community, allows for deep interaction and networking between the participants.

Also, before the main conference (Nov 18-19), a special business seminar will provide executable frameworks for the management of mass customization and open innovation and a focused view on future topics.

You can now join the conference in a lively exchange on best practices, case studies, success factors and open business models that focus on the top management and leadership issues and / or provide deep insights into specific design parameters of the tools and technologies behind open co-creation and mass customization. Some selected topics of presentations and panels at the MCPC include:

  • Setting up a mass customization business model
  • The market for mass customization
  • Defining a customer co-creation initiative that works
  • Managing customer-centric supply chains and fulfillment
  • Design elements of successful configuration toolkits
  • Metrics for open innovation
  • Implementing open innovation in an R&D organization
  • Learning from failures of the early pioneers
  • Getting VC investments for business models for MCP
  • Optimal incentives for internal and external participants
  • Getting corporate buy-in for customer co-design and OI
  • And much more…

By the way, the MCKN platform (see previous post), will be advertised to such auditorium during the event.

Frank Piller (RWTH/MIT)

A major stream of research at RWTH-TIM is on open innovation in the realization stage of an innovation project, i.e. transferring and utilizing technological knowledge from an organization’s periphery to improve the productivity of technical problem solving.  Along this line of research, we work with a number of companies and industry associations on establishing an open innovation framework or utilizing the upcoming platforms and intermediaries for open innovation (see our study The Market for open innovation). Also, open innovation became the largest topic for executive education classes that I am giving this year.

From these projects and executive classes, I realized a number of repeating factors that seem to influence the implementation of open innovation. In a blog posting by Science Business, a UK news service that wants to facilitate the matching of buyers and sellers of emerging technologies, I found a nice article that supports my own observations. The report is about a qualitative interview study on the state of implementation of open innovation in the world’s 30 largest health care and manufacturing companies. The study has been carried out by the UK consultancy group PA Consulting.

In the report, open innovation is defined broadly (in the understanding of Henry Chesbrough) as the practices of a company to work with partners, agencies and other companies outside its organization to foster innovation (note that my own definition of OI is a bit closer and focused on practices that build on rather informal, ad-hoc and large-scale organizational mechanisms to connect seekers and providers of technical knoweldge).

These are my conclusions from the report and my own observations on the state of implementation of open innovation:

  • Only few companies have so far adopted a structured or company-wide approach to practice open innovation. At the same time, open innovation and customer co-creation are becoming more and more separated. The term “open innovation” is used for technology or knowledge transfer for a given technological challenge in an innovation project, while the term “(customer) co-creation” is being used to address practice of integrating users and customers in the early stages of the innovation process. Both areas have different methods, different responsibilities, and different people driving them in an organization.
  • Respondents in the PA Study felt that it can be difficult to gain buy-in and resources for open innovation projects and those involved in open innovation can feel marginalized and under pressure to show results.
  • To be successful in open innovation, the top of the business have to champion the process. Leadership also is critical to building the outward-looking culture that is essential. An engaged, enthusiastic CEO or head of function can do much to engender a similar attitude in employees, and get open innovation accepted.
  • Open innovation is seen as a strategic necessity in sustaining innovation leadership. Some also saw it as a possible cost-saving response to the present downturn. This is strongly confirmed by own observations in Germany. Many companies are interested in NineSigma or InnoCentive today as they see it first of all as a means to increase the efficiency of problem solving, i.e. save cost and reduce financial risk.
  • Only few companies are yet able to construct and appraise an objective business case for open innovation, or have a reliable measuring system to proof the value it brings to their business. This is one of the largest fields where applied research has to start.
  • Open innovation requires dedicated organizational capabilities like relationship building, negotiating and the ability to pioneer novel legal arrangements. Here, we still lack both theoretical and practical knowledge about the exact nature of these capabilities, their success factors, and how to build them best in an organization.
  • An important observation was how to get “ready for open innovation”. The only way to learn about open innovation is to pilot it. But in this process, formal training is an important part of its acceptance and its success. Often, one person is heading the OI initiative, but if you want to make it work, you need an entire team of people who all understand different aspects of open innovation across the entire company.

By the way, Pictures of the Future is the corporate magazine of Siemens AG, Germany’s largest technology company. The magazine reports several times a year about technological advancements, publishes trend studies and outlooks, both with regard to Siemens applications and beyond.

The recent issue (Spring 2010) has, among other themes, a very comprehensive special report about open innovation. It follows a broad understanding of the term and provides an excellent overview of this field from the perspective of a large corporation.

Frank Piller (RWTH/MIT)