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.

As an early adopter of consumer electronic gadgets far and wide, I am constantly reading and absorbing everything I can in print and online when it comes to technology.  Recently, I caught the announcement that Microsoft pulled their Kin phones just 45 days after product launch.  This is as fast as the closing of a bad play on Broadway (but way more expensive - one estimate says the failure cost Microsoft at least $240 million after selling possibly only a few thousand devices).

This got me thinking about the challenge in balancing the drive to be "first to market" with the mantra of "fail early and fail often", and how our work with clients fits into this.  A critical element to open innovation is that although these new skills can enable a robust product devleopment funnel (by combining internal activities with enabling external components, subsystems, platform technologies, ideas, products for acquisition, etc.), but it is critical to have metrics in place to evaluate projects at every step of the way (even after product launch).  Many companies have "stage-gate" type processes, but often these processes are not strictly adhered to. 

For example, one thing I've learned in working closely with CPG and Food and Beverage companies, is that product development activities have to be closely aligned not only to the corporate/business strategy, but also to consumer insights.  Consumer insights are not only useful for test marketing products and driving marketing and brand development, but with solid integration of Open Innovation practices, gaps in the product features/performance can be identified and then rapidly filled via external innovation. 

By the way, before you count Microsoft down for the count, the entire Kin team has already been reassigned to enable them to focus exclusively on the Windows Phone 7 mobile platform, so you can bet Microsoft will learn from their mistake and come back stronger.

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.

Over the last ten years, we have either worked for or discussed working for a large number of companies that are implementing open innovation programs. Many times they have referred to NineSigma and others as Open Innovation intermediaries.

I have always pushed back when firms classify NineSigma as an OI intermediary. To me an intermediary is a group that simply connects two groups together and hopes for the best from the connection.

At NineSigma our work is focused across the two dimensions of Engage and Enable. Our Engage business is all about supporting our clients in solving a critical business challenge. This may involve finding and acquiring a platform technology to enable a suite of new products, it may be mapping out a white space and presenting options to our client on how to capitalize on new opportunities, it may be helping indentify new applications for existing technologies or it may be identifying and then contracting with a co-development partner.

The work typically involves broadly Engaging the global innovation community in order to deliver the desired results to our client. We use the term Engage to differentiate NineSigma's level of interaction with the global innovation community. Engage implies searching for and then engaging groups identified to deliver results to our client. Engaging means dialog, analysis, interpretation and synthesis to create a final work product that adds value to our client. This is much more that simply acting as an intermediary and connecting two groups together and hoping for a good result.

As Anne Morrow Lindbergh was quoted as saying, “Good communication is as stimulating as black coffee, and just as hard to sleep after.”

We are seeing just this type of communication on Open Innovation. Our clients typically have formal internal communication processes that include company newsletters, websites, cross-business meetings and the like. Open Innovation is fast becoming a topic of choice as companies strive to educate and inform their employees on the impact and potential of Open Innovation. Companies are more openly talking about successes they’ve experienced and the challenges they’ve faced as they work at embedding Open Innovation across the enterprise.  

A long-time client, 3M, recently used Open Innovation in its ‘cover story’ for the company’s internal newspaper. The article discussed 3M’s pursuit of a new platform technology:  “The incubator lab team collaborated with [Robert] Finocchiaro to initiate a global technology search. Together, they enlisted NineSigma, an open innovation service provider, to solicit solutions from researchers worldwide. ‘We got more than 40 responses,” [Rick] Neby noted, and one was from a company based in Switzerland that was coating 1.15 refractive index materials for improving ink reception on inkjet paper. Their material had some very desirable optical properties that could ultimately affect products in several divisions.’” The article went on to describe how the company’s incubator lab was sparking new innovation in ways they didn’t think possible.

Siemens recently referenced their Open Innovation work in the company’s magazine, Pictures of the Future. “Siemens is making use of OI methods in research as well. When faced with particularly tricky problems, Siemens researchers sometimes turn to “e-brokers,” who team up with external problem-solvers. In such cases, developers publicly describe their problem on an e-broker website, such as NineSigma or yet2com, and offer a cash reward for the best solution. And that solution can come from a large IT company in India or from an amateur developer in Germany. Approximately half of the problems are successfully solved in this way. So it’s not surprising that large companies like BASF, Novartis, and Nestlé are likewise using this method of finding solutions.”

Open Innovation will continue to be a hot topic within our client organizations, particularly as OI leaders are able to share big wins and lessons learned through the process.  This will further stimulate creativity among employees and help to get them thinking about the infinite possibilities Open Innovation can create for even the most sophisticated companies.

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…

Here we are in 2010, some seven years after Henry Chesbrough published the book Open Innovation and we are still seeing a wide disparity in results from open innovation initiatives. In addition, there are many companies that are still trying to determine if they should even try or pilot an open innovation program. What does organizational culture have to do with the success of open innovation?

Hill and Jones defined organization culture in their book Strategic Management (Houghton Mifflin, 2001) as “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.”

If we break this definition down (at a very high level) and apply it to open innovation can we glean any insights?

First, let’s explore the phrase “collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization.” If an organization has always relied on internal resources for innovation and all of the major successes have originated internally, then it will by default be hard to convince this group of people to suddenly change the way they have innovated in the past to look broadly outside of the organization for co-development partners. On the other hand, if there have been innovation successes that have originated through supplier or university partnerships in the past, then this group of people will be much more receptive to changing to be more open to new innovations that originate from outside the firm.

The phrase “control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization” lends insight as well. Here “interact with stakeholders outside the organization” is insightful. Many times we have seen an organization overcome the hurdle of reaching broadly outside the organization to search for new co-development partners only to hit a wall when having to assess what they find from outside the organization and build agreements for co-development and sharing of intellectual property.

One of the lessons I have learned over the years is that you cannot directly change culture. You can change individual behaviors and through this process slowly change culture. In looking at organizations that have benefited from open innovation, what I have seen is an emphasis on changing behaviors through training, rewards, recognition and managers that constantly ask – Have you looked outside? What did you find? How did you use what you found?

Over the past month the headlines have been dominated by the BP oil-spill crisis.  Unfortunately, much of this noise is filled with individuals and organizations that are leveraging the crisis as a cheap PR opportunity.  They try to force half-baked solutions on BP, and when BP does not adopt these solutions, they are accused of “coming up empty,” and “ignoring help” that is being presented to them.  The reality of this type of situation is typically more complicated than it appears, and players in the open innovation space should have the experience to recognize this. 

One of our Program Managers brought to my attention a similar story that occurred back in the early days of WWI where the English tried to use a pre-Internet form of “crowdsourcing” to quickly remedy the unexpected sinking of many ships in the English Channel by German U-Boots.  This was a new phenomenon that was causing great losses to the British fleet, yet nobody knew how to deal with the situation when it began.  So they placed ads in all major newspapers asking the public to send in ideas on how to defend against these unexpected stealth intruders, and within a short period of time they were flooded with proposals ranging from human swimmers to trained seals.  Despite the massive response, none of the outside ideas provided a viable solution to the crisis.  The practical solution ended up coming from those scientists working directly with the military, who understood all of the details and parameters of the situation.

The lesson that we can take from this story is clear.  Unsolicited solutions do not work without first coordinating with those directly responsible for the crisis.  Without a full understanding of the situation, the resources already allocated, and the actual environment of the crisis, unsolicited responses are as effective as an armchair quarterback. 

I would be interested to hear the opinions and insights of others who are involved in the open innovation space.

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.