According to the International Aids Vaccine Initiative’s website “IAVI is a global not-for-profit, public-private partnership whose mission is to ensure the development of a preventive HIV vaccine for use throughout the world”.  In addition to funding IAVI’s own scientific team, they offer grants to support selected HIV research projects.

IAVI has been working to develop vaccines that produce neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against HIV to prevent infections and the development of AIDS.  Currently, there are no vaccines that produce NAbs against HIV but naturally occurring Nabs were discovered in an HIV infected patient who did not develop AIDS.  Although the target of these HIV NAbs was identified as a protein on the surface of the virus, the protein is too unstable to use in a vaccine and strategies to stabilize it have been unsuccessful. 

IAVI contacted NineSigma to help identify a population of scientists who specialize in protein stabilization but who may not have considered working on AIDS related research problems in the past.   This type of project is directly suited to NineSigma’s ability to find solutions from areas outside our client’s primary focus.  We worked with Dr. Hansi Dean at IAVI to draft an RFP entitled “Engineering Stable Proteins”, which focused on protein modification rather than HIV to attract the attention of a new group of protein scientists. More than 30 proposals were submitted from an international group of protein researchers, and IAVI assembled a committee to review and rank the proposals.  Preliminary funding decisions have been made, and we are looking forward to making a full announcement of the results shortly.

At some point in each of our careers we have learned Michael Porter’s Value Chain approach to understanding the movement of materials and information from early stages of inbound logistics to customer-facing services.  While the Value Chain model served us well over the years by providing an understanding of the various functions within a company, it has done little to represent the flow of ideas and information that lead to new innovations.  In fact, I would go as far to say that a company’s complete buy-in to the Value Chain model to represent organizational design and process flows can actually stand in the way of collaborative innovation.  Allow me to explain.

The Value Chain model portrays an organization as a segmented, linear flow of business functionality.  Many companies have designed their various departments to enable this flow, believing that they were conforming to best business practices – and the flow works fine within a typical operational cycle.  But this is only a part of what companies do.  When it comes time to innovate (i.e., stretch beyond the current bounds of the organization), people have a tendency to generate isolated solutions that are relevant only to their department, and not thought through or tested in a systemic manner.  Ever wonder why most organizations today suffer under the silo effect that inhibits the transparency of ideas and information?  A case in point is the proverbial gap between Marketing and R&D.  While ERP systems can help to alleviate some transparency issues, this does not address the core issue, and has little to no effect on innovation. 

If we were simply to take the linear Value Chain model, and bend it around the edges to create a circle (or cycle), it would have an entirely different effect within the company.  In the center of the new “Value Cycle” could be cross-functional teams, processes and social media systems that enable the introduction of new ideas from anywhere within the company, while allowing people from other departments to contribute their perspectives, thus building on and improving the original idea.  Around the outside of the new Value Cycle are the company’s suppliers, business partners, and even regulatory bodies who, if plugged into the process (i.e., the inner circle), can bring yet another perspective to what is now emerging as a new innovation that has been tested and vetted from within.  This merging of internal and external sources into a central innovation process, or cycle, must not be thought of as temporary – it has to become the norm.

If a company is still faced with what appears to be an insurmountable innovation challenge, it can reach out to yet another tier of innovation resources – the global innovation community.  Companies typically do this by instituting a technology scouting function, or simply by engaging an open innovation intermediary like NineSigma, that maintains a global network of solution providers representing virtually every technology category.  This next tier of innovation reach provides yet another perspective that comes from individual inventors, companies and universities from around the world, and often outside the company’s industry.  When new technologies and partnerships are forged from this tier, they too can become part of the inner circle of the company’s Value Cycle.  It is at this point that the company experiences the true essence and value of collaborative innovation.

One of the challenges I still see in open innovation is when it is tried in a highly conservative environment, typically an ‘old school’ engineering company.  By ‘old school’  I mean a company  that is used to doing everything the same way they have for years and years. They use external development partners such as universities and suppliers but they always first try to solve problems internally and then only if that fails will they go to a network of external partners. But typically this external network is the same groups they have relied on in the past which results in the same answers they’ve already received.

We recently wrapped up an open innovation pilot at a client who readily admits they are conservative. They were very impressed with the breadth of the potential partners we presented to them on the different projects we ran. They talked about how we “opened their eyes” on one particular project and uncovered work on the topic they were not aware of. They talked about how open innovation is an excellent way to connect with thought leaders from around the world. Another researcher talked about how the process of creating the NineSigma RFP really made them sharpen their thinking around the problem definition.

However, when the discussion turned to whether they saw open innovation as a fit to their current innovation strategy, they felt that it would be quite a while before they could adopt open innovation beyond the few projects in the pilot.

The challenge was culture. Even though they clearly saw the benefits of open innovation, they could not see how to change the culture. It is interesting that some seven years after the book “Open Innovation” was published that companies will still revert back to their old ways.

I would be interested in your thoughts and observations on the cultural aspect of open innovation adoption?

Watch what happens when you ask for volunteers to lead an innovation project.  Some individuals will wish that they were invisible while others will jump out of their seats with the enthusiasm of a first grader being offered an extra recess.  What is it that motivates people to respond in such different ways?

That is the question that NineSigma set out to answer in our partnership with Caliper.  We had often observed that a client would succeed when they had a motivated innovation champion, but they would then struggle in duplicating that success organization-wide.  After working with hundreds of clients over the past ten years, we could describe the characteristics of an innovation champion, but we did not have the organizational development expertise to answer our clients’ question “how do we create a team of people who have a passion for innovation?”

Caliper, a human resources consulting firm with 50 years of experience advising over 25,000 companies in team building, and employee and organizational development, was a perfect partner.  We found that Caliper shares many of NineSigma’s core values, like a respect for scientific methodology and an insatiable curiosity.  By combining Caliper’s expertise in human resources and personality assessment with NineSigma’s expertise in innovation, we collaborated to create the world’s first Collaborative Innovation Profile.

Caliper’s rigorous methodology started with a validation study, which included a customized innovation job analysis and development of a competency model for innovation leaders and project managers.  Caliper incorporated interview and assessment results from a sample group of Innovation professionals and implementers.  Caliper’s research team then analyzed the data to determine which traits are most associated with success within the competency model.  The result is a specialized tool that helps management and innovation professionals select and develop successful innovation teams.

Of course, the NineSigma team was eager to learn the results of our Collaborative Innovation team assessment.  No surprise to us, the results confirmed that we are a highly innovative and collaborative group.  Our partnership with Caliper is a shining example of how an open innovation company can grow through open innovation. 

I often see people struggling to understand the difference between Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation (OI).  Are they the same or completely different?  Is one a sub-set of the other?  Well, the unpopular, yet correct answer is “it depends.”  While Crowdsourcing is, by definition, different than OI, the two disciplines can, in fact, overlap.  Let me try to explain.  Crowdsourcing is a process by which an organization leverages the power of crowds (either a captive community or the general public) to help identify trends, or to source new concepts, ideas or designs for the marketing and development of new products and services.  Open Innovation, on the other hand, is the process of going outside an organization’s physical boundaries to identify and/or acquire new innovations, which can be in the form of a concept, expertise, intellectual property (i.e., technology), or a new supply source. 

Using the fishing metaphor, think of Crowdsourcing as a broad net, where the net (or challenge) is cast out to a larger population of loyal customers, targeted communities or the general public.  The person casting the net is interested in identifying trends and ideas coming directly from a large population (at least much larger than can be achieved by a typical consumer insight study).  OI, on the other hand, uses a fishing pole approach to target a very specific community that can solve an existing innovation problem – one that cannot necessarily be resolved by the organization seeking the solution.  For innovation needs that are more conceptual, Crowdsourcing can be used to find a solution.  However, as the seeker’s needs become more specific, other techniques, such as NineSigma’s RFP (request for proposal) method have proven time and again to be much more effective – especially when the seeker has access to a broad network of potential solution providers to whom the RFP or challenge can be sent.

It is important to know which approach to use and when to use it.   As companies begin to rely more heavily on OI and Crowdsourcing to resolve innovation issues and to support broad-reaching marketing efforts, picking the right approach can make a world of difference in terms of efficiency and overall success. 

Want to learn more about crowdsourcing? Contact us today to find out how our open innovation experts can help you.

Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, before anyone had heard of “crowd sourcing”, (coined in 2006) NineSigma clients were fascinated by the opportunity to reach into every corner of the globe for answers to their biggest challenges.  The focus was on “how” and “where” to get the solution.  NineSigma solved the “how” by providing the answer to “where”.

Fast forward to 2010…companies have more information than they can process.  Chat rooms, company-sponsored websites, OI intermediaries like NineSigma…Open Innovation can feel like the suggestion box on steroids.  The real challenge today is how to manage and optimize Open Innovation.

The companies that will be the Open Innovation leaders tomorrow are those that are successful in creating their Open Innovation Office – the structure that broadcasts the right information outside to the best external resources, and then funnels the value back inside to act on it efficiently.

We believe that three pillars are essential to building a successful, sustainable Open Innovation Office. 

Framework –Vision, Process and Organizational Design, and underlying Software

Support – People and resources to:

• Develop OI best practices and build OI adoption
• Manage the Needs Funnel, relationships with external partners and integration of OI projects into the product development cycle

OI Toolbox –Partners and tools to engage internally and externally

Framed by executive commitment to your OI Strategy and program management and accountability, these three pillars build an integrated, managed and optimized Open Innovation program. Let NineSigma help you launch an open innovation program. Contact us to learn more about open innovation

An Israeli investor in the medical devices industry recently complained “Israel has too many start-ups. Israeli companies are great at taking an innovative idea through the alpha stage, but then the start-up goes under because we lack companies with the expertise to fund through beta and scale to manufacturing”.  “Aagh”, as my Jewish grandmother would say, “we should only have such problems”.

With the jobless rate for newly minted college graduates at historical highs of 7.5%, Thomas Friedman bemoans policy makers’ lack of focus on what the U.S. needs to create good jobs for the future.  “We need three things: start-ups, start-ups and more start-ups,” recommends Mr. Friedman.  

To create a dynamic economy, I question if a country needs to excel at every link in the innovation value chain.  If Adam Smith could speak to me from my Economics 101 textbook, he would ask, “Why can’t my economic theory of the “invisible hand “be applied to create a free trade approach to global innovation?”  

Here’s a free trade innovation model to consider: American industry jointly funds technology incubators that sponsor foreign-grown start-ups.  By nurturing and co-investing in early stage technologies, American companies gain two advantages.  First, they share the risk of failure (which should be high! That’s what makes these start-ups), and second, they nurture technologies that match their applications and needs.

Adam Smith could not have known in 1776 how “innovative” his theory could be in 2010…

When we talk about culture in Open Innovation, we are usually referring to the openness and receptivity of the organization to collaborative development with external parties.  But what about the old-fashioned culture issues of overcoming country and language barriers?  You might be thinking “That is so last century!  With the internet, there are no global boundaries.”

The speed and ease of today’s communication technology – email, video conferencing, and cell phones –create an efficient global communication infrastructure that was barely imaginable even 30 years ago.   But if we could erase the human element of business collaboration, why are airplanes still full of business travelers?

While your meetings may look like a United Nations convention, your Open Innovation partner might be more firmly rooted in their national culture.  I won’t bore you with all the standard business advice based on cultural stereotypes.  However, if you are aware of cultural tendencies that impact the dynamics of your Open Innovation partnerships, you can avoid pitfalls and surprises.

Each of these cultural partnership dynamics impact the success of Open Innovation collaborations

How the group makes decisions

·        Does your partner share their decision making process

·        Does the group require consensus before a decision can be made

·        Is there a designated “speaker”

·        Do participants defer to a senior figure

·        Are decisions made in the conference room or at dinner

·        Do individuals say one thing in the “official” meetings and something different in casual settings

How the partnership is structured

·        Long term commitment with open outcomes demonstrates value in relationship-based collaborations

·        Short timeframe with multiple “escape” performance clauses reflects a transactional preference

·        Is the partner offering a team or an individual

·        Are payments requested in advance of delivery or after performance

·        Are IP issues of high importance and handled formally through lawyers or are they loosely defined, with a “wait and see” attitude

Borders and Language: An issue or non-issue?

·        How is travel and on-site visitation viewed

·        Is the delivery or collaboration structured to be “virtual” or on-site

·        Is communication primarily written or verbal

·        Is there a team member who is acting as “speaker” who may also be the translator

·        Are emails in eloquent English while verbal communication is challenging

In our last post we discussed identifying and selecting Needs for an open innovation pilot program. In this post we will discuss the next step of engaging with potential solution providers that may have an answer to the Need.

Many organizations refer to this step as a "make versus buy" decision. This implies that there are only two options for solving the Need - either develop internally or find and use an external partner. In reality, there are three options - internal, internal/external and external. By external, I mean either license technology that exists or co-develop. We see many of our clients pursue the internal/external path where they are working on the issue internally at the same time they are searching externally for someone who has either solved the problem or is farther along or on a different, more compelling solution path.

The other process that is undertaken at this point is determining the solution network. For large, global organizations the first step may be to communicate the Need broadly within the organization to see if there is a solution available internally. We are currently working with a large multi-national chemical industry client to create a structure / process to communicate needs internally in order to leverage their globally distributed R&D resources. Once the internal search for a solution is exhausted then the search becomes focused on external resources. Now the decision becomes one of "do I use my existing networks or do I use a firm like NineSigma to communicate the Need broadly?" Again, here the answer is not yes / no, but what factors such as timing, cost, degree of technical challenge and others may play in the decision making. Many times for incremental technology development an existing supplier may be the obvious choice. Or there may be considerations for funding university work such as "community relations" that drive the decision.

Looking broadly, across industries to the global innovation community has one significant advantage and that is the opportunity to find an "unobvious" solution to the problem. In our work in over 1,600 open innovation projects, we have seen many unobvious solutions. Semiconductor research applied to fabric care, candy dispensing applied to appliances, agriculture sensor systems applied to automobiles and many others. In addition to the opportunity to find an unobvious solution, reaching broadly to the global innovation community will bring back considerable information that the project team can use. This external information combined with internal knowledge will help with decision making and ultimately reduce project risk.

Back to getting started with open innovation. We would recommend evaluating the Needs that were the highest priority and selecting some of these to communicate to the global innovation community. There are a number of firms today that can help with this. Evaluate them and select a partner. When looking for a potential partner a couple of key points to evaluate are:
- level of support provided to the OI project team
- breadth of network and is it a passive or pro-active approach to finding solution providers
- how is IP handled
- experience and references
- others

In the next post we will discuss what happens once you have connected with the global innovation community and have initial the results back.

In just the past 25 years or so, new technologies like that for automated DNA sequencing have enabled us to begin to understand the language that encodes our biological lives. This is the language of the genome- in which our genes are sentences made up of DNA letters and words that are used as molecular instructions to each of our cells. What proteins should be made to build a heart muscle? What enzymes should be produced to control our blood sugar? What building blocks are needed to make new connections in our brains so that we remember what we’ve learned? Our current knowledge and understanding of the human genome is made possible by technological advances that scientists use to detect, measure, analyze, and compile new information obtained through experimentation in the field of molecular biology. We know what many of our genes are for; we also know some of what happens if a gene has a mistake in it, or is damaged. Such mutations can lead to innocuous individual variations, to inherited conditions, or to diseases like cancer, among others. It is this knowledge about specific genes that has allowed genetic tests to be developed that can predict the likelihood that you may develop certain diseases, like breast cancer.

On a broader level, complete genomes have been recorded from several individuals so that we know exactly what DNA sequences describe these people. The cost of compiling this information has ranged from $2.7 billion for the first one in 2003 to $1,500 today, according to Wired magazine’s online article, and is predicted to go even lower. As far as I can tell, even these numbers don’t take into account the time and cost of all the technological innovations required to enable researchers to do the work! But the idea that every one of us could soon have our own genome “read” so that we can learn more about our sensitivity to certain drugs, or about how effective our medications are likely to be, is the subject of new fields called pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics- perhaps better known as personalized medicine. These new fields address how your genes control the way you respond to certain drugs, and why different people (with genetic variations) will respond to a certain drug in different ways.

New technologies are going to be required to allow us to personalize our healthcare to adapt to our individual genetic variations. Inexpensive genome sequencers are in the works, and at NineSigma, I’ve seen an incredible variety of new medical devices and diagnostic technologies presented in response to challenges we’ve posted on behalf of global clients.  What is especially exciting for me, and something that NineSigma prides itself on, is that we often find a technology from one area that may be relevant to a completely different industry. Advances in personalized medicine, while valuable and even essential for human health and well-being, might be applicable in other sectors. A tiny genetic lab-on-a-chip might be useful for an individual’s medical diagnosis, but may also be useful to detect microbial contamination in an industrial setting.  As personalized medicine moves forward, this is an exciting time to be part of the innovation world!

For more information about how open innovation can assist with new product development, contact us today.