Co-working.  In a world of collaboration and co-creating, we now have co-working.  According to the New York Times July 17, 2011 article “Working Separately, Working Together”, freelancers and telecommuters are finding that being unshackled from the office environment is not nirvana.  Instead, it is a lonely place.   The work-at-home crowd is abandoning their corner Starbucks for membership in co-working spaces called IndyHall and Hive.  These 5000 square ft., open floor plan office spaces offer the community and collaboration that comes from a shared, non-virtual work space.  You can “rent” a cubicle (isn’t that what they were fleeing?!?) and soak in the collaborative energy of tapping keyboards and human contact.

At NineSigma, we witness this collaborative energy in our Linked Innovation programs.  Clients come together to address some of the thorniest problems, recognizing that their combined efforts can accelerate the outcome that they each seek.  One group has been working together for 6 months to address a key sustainability issue that impacts their entire industry.  Merging the perspective of nearly a dozen powerhouse corporations into a shared vision statement and action plan is no small task.  As they toiled to blend the nuances of each company’s viewpoint, I secretly admired their passion and commitment.

These companies recognize that they cannot solve the big, global challenges by “freelancing”.  Whether they are seeking new technologies to achieve their long-term sustainability goals, or finding efficient ways to meet regulatory standards that ensure consumer safety, collaboration is the accelerator.  NineSigma’s Linked Innovation program provides the “co-working” environment for them to bring together their collaborative energy into a virtual and physical place.

And like Hive and IndyHall, we even provide the coffee.

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.

I became aware of an interesting trend while traveling through Europe this past week.  During one of my stops in Perugia, Italy, I spoke with a group of senior level managers of small and medium sized organizations (SME’s).  I was discussing the process and value proposition of open innovation, and while most everyone was interested, they all realized that the cost of doing open innovation is still a bit higher than the price that these companies are willing to pay.  In other words, cost is a direct barrier to SME participation in open innovation.  Many of the participants spoke about what they would do if they could participate in the Open Innovation (OI) marketplace using an OI platform to help them find new ideas and resolve problems that have long haunted them, and how such access to a broad range of external knowledge would benefit their companies.  Clearly, they get it.  And, this is not a unique response from others that I received from SME’s in other countries around the world.  They all need it, but don’t know how to realize it with their streamlined budgets.

Now, let’s rewind to recent discussions I had with local governments in Africa, Europe, the Americas and the Middle East earlier this year.  Each of the government officials with whom I spoke made it clear that they had funds available to stimulate the economy through programs that would support local entrepreneurs and businesses in their respective regions.  In fact, many international institutions, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the EU are providing funds to spark regional economic development.  However, when I speak of open innovation with local governments, many of them claim that it hasn’t been proven yet in their regions.  The conservative “wait and see” response seems to be prevalent most everywhere.  However, do their current programs yield tangible benefits?  Have prior efforts worked for them in terms of spawning economic growth?  The answer to these questions is often a resounding “no,” according to the local SME’s.  The funny thing is, when I ask these local governments who helped them come up with the ideas for their existing programs, there always seems to be some internal guru who convinces the government agency that their new idea should work.  It rarely involves the constituency of SME’s in their region who are in dire need of help.  I think you see where I am going with this.

One brave little region in Northern Italy (Piedmont) had the guts to listen to their constituency and try open innovation as a means of sparking the local economy, and efforts for a new regional OI program are just now getting underway.  If more local government officials would listen to their constituency and realize the potential benefits an OI program would have in their regions, such as increasing revenue opportunities, job growth, and providing the foundation for a thriving local economy, they could possibly innovate themselves out of their current economic slump.  All eyes are now on the Piedmont region, and once they are able to demonstrate success, it is just a matter of time before universal adoption begins to take place.  For this to happen, local governments must be prepared to fund both the establishment of local resources for OI participation for their resident SME’s, and be prepared to offer funding for the various acquisitions that will likely take place once the program is underway.  These simple steps will remove barriers to SME participation in OI, and open the flood gates of innovation potential within their regions.  We are at the threshold of a new horizon, but some governments must be willing to work with their constituent SME’s to demonstrate what many large enterprises have known for years – OI works. 

Contact us today to find out how our open innovation experts can help you.

Many years ago Geoff Moore wrote a book called Crossing the Chasm. His premise was that many high-tech ventures fail to cross the chasm from early adopters to the early majority and therefore fail as viable businesses. Is there an analogy for open innovation?

Many companies have implemented open innovation organizations and programs over the last few years. Companies adopt open innovation with high expectations. They expect to find the next breakthrough technology, a new business model or an undiscovered product that they can market globally. But, there has been a wide disparity in results obtained from these efforts. Why do only some firms see a significant contribution from open innovation? Many times as the open innovation program develops and the first few open innovation projects generate results, we will see a “chasm” form as the initial results do not meet expectations.

It is at this “chasm” that many open innovation initiatives will fail or become stuck.

NineSigma sees three distinct phases in the adoption of open innovation. These are Launch, Consolidate and Embed.

The Launch phase is just as the name implies – a firm launches an open innovation program. This can either be a small experiment in one SBU or department or it can be a broader open innovation initiative. In either case, the firm has a level of commitment to open innovation.

The Consolidate phase is where the firm now is focused on identifying the best practices from the Launch phase. Once identified, the focus is to consolidate these best practices and roll them out broadly across the organization.

The Embed phase is where open innovation is no longer a specific program, but is now embedded into the day-to-day work of innovation.

Why do firms not easily move past the Launch phase to Consolidate? What can be done to make this transition easier? A few of the reasons it is hard to move from Launch to Consolidate are:

• There is no clearly defined open innovation process – no one knows how open innovation should work
• Open innovation is cross functional but other functional areas are not on board
• Building new alliances is hard and can take time
• There is a lack of metrics  to measure performance
• Financial benefits fall short of expectations

How does a firm avoid the chasm? Mainly it is a matter of approaching an open innovation program the same way you would any large change program such as six sigma. You need to have clearly identified goals, all of the stakeholders aligned, good communications, someone responsible for success, training and good execution. This does not mean a big, expensive program. Even if your start with some simple projects to reach broadly outside of the organization to find new innovation, you need to define the goals, set expectations and then learn from the experience.

Developing and then measuring the benefits from an OI program can be a challenging exercise. We have coined the term Benefits Case to differentiate this from a more formal Return-On-Investment (ROI) analysis. The Benefits Case has financial elements, but also has “softer” measures as well.

Benefit cases all have the core elements of:

•          Quantifying major improvement opportunities

•          Ensuring that OI resources are allocated to the areas of highest leverage

•          Establishing the range of benefits to be achieved through OI implementation activities

•          Providing the basis for assessing the OI return and tracking benefits during the OI program implementation

•          Developing the rational basis for an OI program

Overall the OI Benefits Case identifies areas of opportunity and quantifies the improvement potential as a result of OI activities. The figure at the bottom of this post shows the components of a OI Benefits Case.

The OI Benefits Case will have both Measureable and Non-Measureable components. Measureable benefits may include revenue projections from new products and services as a result of OI activities, increased revenue impact from improved manufacturing operations due to OI projects, reduced costs due to improvements in speed-to-innovation or time-to-market, increased innovation productivity and other potential measureable impacts. Non-financial impacts may include increased customer satisfaction due to enhanced product features or improvement in product quality as a result of OI project impact.

Non-measurable benefit impacts include clearer roles & responsibilities, the impact of external knowledge gained through OI on decision making, enhanced innovation skills, improved leveraging of internal knowledge and other “soft” or non-quantifiable measures.

In addition to the positive financial benefits, we must subtract the cost side of an OI program. The cost side will include both internal personnel costs and external costs such as training, OI consultants, OI project costs and technology costs. This then provides the top left quadrant of the Benefits Case which is the OI program breakeven point and anticipated return.

The development of a Benefits Case at the start of an OI program provides both guidance in terms of areas of focus and a tool to use during the implementation of the OI program to guide the implementation team. One of the challenges in OI programs is the eagerness to jump right to a ROI, when in fact the full financial impact of an OI program can take significant time to develop due to time-to-market consideration in product development and launch. This is why capturing some of the “soft” benefits and then tracking these as leading indicators can be very valuable to both guide the implementation team and to assure senior management that progress is being made.

Indicators such as early stage innovation portfolio impact from OI, number of projects with a significant OI component, decisions impacted as a result of external knowledge gained through OI activities are all leading indicators of the future ROI as the result of either revenue or cost impacts to the business.

Just this past week, I had the opportunity to update my retirement account contribution through my employer’s plan. Included in the glossy brochure that explained all the new features and investment products available to me was a quiz. You probably know the one- it has a series of questions that assess your tolerance for riskiness in your retirement investment portfolio. I bring this up because in the 3 years that I’ve been a Program Manager at NineSigma, I’ve seen many clients and potential clients with a broad range of risk tolerances when it comes to Open Innovation (OI). Yes, many of our clients are Fortune 500 companies, and Wikipedia defines middle market companies as “those with revenues generally between USD$100 million and USD$1 billion per year.” Some of you might assume that a big company with annual revenue of $1 billion plus might have higher tolerance than a smaller company for spending money on OI, for opening up to new suppliers and development partners, or simply for participating in a process that can sometimes bring in completely unexpected results.  Do the Fortune 500 have more resources to wade through and vet potential solutions, and to engage with and fund new solution providers? Maybe, but my experience has been that it’s really a matter of comfort with the unknown that drives “success” in the application of OI in any organization- no matter what the annual revenue is.

Big companies and small can face challenges and road blocks as they try to improve processes, reduce costs, enter new markets, and drive products to market faster than their competitors.  Addressing these issues might mean that a company asks an OI intermediary like NineSigma to conduct a search for a partner with a very specific set of design/development/manufacturing capabilities, for an experts group to act as an advisory panel for a new market, for technical and business intelligence in a clearly defined technology arena, for co-development partners for a new product, for a novel technology that will improve an internal process, or for a toll manufacturer or material supplier. Bottom line is that we see needs of all types across companies of various sizes. Open Innovation intermediaries can give you access to people, technologies, and geographies that you might not be able to reach on your own, even if you do have the internal resources for an extensive scouting group. The Fortune 500 may run multiple NineSigma projects and a smaller company might run one or two a year, but the process we use, and the support we provide, is the same and applies equally well. Depending on your openness to new ways of looking at and solving challenges, OI could be a nice addition to your middle market company’s  “investment” portfolio. Let NineSigma help you launch an open innovation program. Contact us to learn more about open innovation.

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