One of my US colleagues said that the refreshing thing about Europe is that it has 20 or so very different systems which all, in some way or another, seem to be working. Multiple solutions for the same need, that seems like the essence of Open Innovation. Was OI invented in Europe?

Reading the article ´Connect and Develop´ by the very American Harvard Business Review inspired me in 2006 to start a company in open innovation providing expert services. The idea was simple enough:  disclose the enormous innovation potential for companies in Europe by engaging the people who actually invented all the technology and developed all the great products of the last 20 years. They were going to retire anyway and it seemed like a great idea to intelligently use this wealth of wisdom.

There was one small challenge to overcome: getting the companies to engage with these top experts.

One of my lessons learned from working in open innovation in the past four years was that corporations lack the interface for actually sourcing and engaging with external partners in innovation. One of the CTO´s in a more philosophic mode remarked that it was related to the unbalance between “Yes” and “No” inside corporations. If someone says “Yes”  to something from the outside they are required to explain and defend their choice for working with an outside party. Saying  “No” obviously does not require explanation, even if it would be discarding the million dollar idea…

It goes to show that we should applaud the heroes that actually say yes to collaborative innovation, willing to explain themselves to their superiors, colleagues and existing partners. Within NineSigma Europe we are very aware and grateful for the champions that we have at the clients in Open Innovation. That is why we want to organize a way to recognize these champions and create some visibility for those people and organizations that lead OI.

More on this in my next Blog.

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.

Exactly one month ago I was sworn in as a US Citizen, and this 4^th of July will thus have special meaning to me.  I will now look at what’s happening on this day with a sense of belonging and sharing, and being a part of something bigger. I think in a lot of ways that is what happens when people practice Open Innovation. When collaboration between two companies is done successfully, they will share many very important details around their future growth goals and projects, and create something that is bigger. It is almost like being “sworn in” to be a part of the community of Open Innovation Practitioners.

America became a very successful nation by being a “melting pot” of people from all nations; people that brought their brains, their energy, and their passion here in order to build a future for themselves and this country. Again, there is a striking analogy here since Open Innovation is also about people from all nations bringing solutions to problems that will help companies, and consequently also countries to have a better future. Could America have been as successful if only one set of people were allowed to contribute to this country?

Lastly, when thinking about the birth of this nation, there was a set of progressive thinkers that were passionate about doing the unthinkable:  To create a true democracy, with “The People” contributing to the development of the country and its institutions. Likewise, Open Innovation was started by some progressive thinkers that did the unthinkable: To say that more and more innovation needs to come from the outside!

My hope is that just like this great country that has been around for well over 200 years, Open Innovation is here to stay as well. It has had its revolutionary wars, but it has come a long way from its early days.

A Happy 4^th of July Weekend to all of you!

Sincerely, Andy Zynga

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

I admit, I have had some lingering questions in the past year or so about the role of Twitter in a comprehensive B2B marketing strategy. I've even questioned what Twitter can do for me personally - is it information? is it entertainment? And then I had a sort of social media epiphany as colleagues were gearing up for the Front End of Innovation US conference yesterday in Boston. I was really wishing I was there as I had worked with our President, Matthew Heim, and our panelists from clients Hallmark, Philips Consumer Lifestyle and Sealed Air over the past couple months to prepare for the event. I knew that FEI had invited people to live blog and Tweet from the event, but when I finally tuned in I was impressed. This was real content that made me feel (almost) like I was there. Here are some of the key takeaways I learned through the Twitter coverage:

• Hallmark's Esselman: once "open innovation" mindset was formalized, existing suppliers became extremely competitive

• Philips' Graham Mott: continuous innovation must be driven from top down, but the challenge is keeping champions' enthusiasm up

• Hallmark wants to create an emotionally-connected world and they see consumers defining emotional connections

• Blaine Childress [Sealed Air] talking about how IP personnel inside AND outside the organization have fears - lose my job versus lose my idea

• Tom Esselman [Hallmark]- Crisp definition of needs to commercialize open innovations makes open innovation more likely to be faster

• Graham Mott talking about how stating challenge too broadly will make it hard to sort through the submissions and evaluate them

And at the end of the day there was a great FEI blog post capturing the key learnings from the NineSigma panel session. Now, I know that live blogging and Tweeting is not unique to FEI and that plenty of other events do this. However, the quality of reporting and integration between the different media helped me see the light; that when executed properly, social media can involve you in a physical event in a way that traditional media cannot. I am a believer (well...I am getting there).

Edmunds.com recently announced a contest to source ideas to answer the question of the much-publicized unintended acceleration issue. Seemingly Edmunds is as tired of all the rhetoric and ongoing investigations as is the general public and is looking for real answers to move closer to a solution. The underlying premise of the contest is that someone somewhere can shed light on the issue in a way that is not currently being employed. And did I mention the prize? An aggregate of $1 million will be awarded to the winning respondent(s) who can “demonstrate a novel and plausible cause of unintended acceleration in a consumer vehicle in accordance with the terms of the contest.” The contest opens May 3, 2010 and runs through October 29, 2010, with an anticipated announcement of winners in March 2011.

NineSigma has extensive background in the automotive industry given our longstanding work with OEMs and suppliers who utilize our network to find new solutions and capabilities to address a full range of technical issues.  We have run countless projects on everything from bio-inspired sensing systems to expert driver systems to extracting heat from parked cars. We were pleased that Edmunds invited our own senior engagement manager, Dr. Kevin Stark, to be an advisor for the contest. Dr. Stark will join other industry experts to help provide guidance on the review process and ultimately the selection of the right solutions. No doubt given the size of the bounty, the contest will attract global attention and prompt an array of viable responses. Wouldn’t it be great if next March Edmunds was able to provide the world and the automotive industry with new answers to this problem that has generated so much media scrutiny and public concern? We, at NineSigma, firmly believe in the power of the crowd and the immense expertise that is out there to solve the most elusive technical mysteries. We will keep our BLOINC readers posted as the contest gets underway.  

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.

     Attending the WBT conference in Dallas last week reminded me of roaming a traditional outdoor marketplace or Middle Eastern bazaar.  Unlike other conferences where deal making occurs in the shadows of learning and under the guise of “networking”, the focus of WBT is to bring together buyers and sellers.  

     The sellers are ambitious and creative inventors of intriguing technologies.  Although some are wizened pros and others are as “green” as the technologies they hawk, they all promote feverishly, convinced that the perfect investor is just one elevator pitch away. 

     The buyers look the part of the moneyed elite, surveying the marketplace with feigned disinterest.  Circles of VC guys boast about companies in their portfolios like cards in a winning poker hand.  Corporate types swagger down the aisles knowing that the Fortune 500 employer on their nametags tantalizes the inventors like designer labels to a crowd of teens.

     In our high tech world of virtual marketplaces, nothing can replace the energy of the marketplace, where buyers and sellers face-off, live and in real-time. 

Many of our clients use their corporate website to highlight strategic and tactical needs as a way to solicit solutions from the global science and innovation community.  Today, I wanted to highlight a website from a client of ours, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI).  Their Open Innovation website, launched in mid 2009, is interesting because although many similar websites exist within the packaged food and consumer packaged goods industries, I am not aware of any other automotive OEM or Tier One supplier doing this today.  Below is a summary of a few questions I've been bouncing off the Johnson Controls Automotive Experience team (the division behind the OI website).

Kevin:  First, can you give some background - who is Johnson Controls?

JCI:   Johnson Controls is a global leader in energy and operational efficiency for buildings, innovative interiors for vehicles and advanced vehicle power solutions.  The Automotive Experience business of Johnson Controls provides automotive seating, interiors and electronics components and systems to almost every automaker globally. Our seating products include: seat trim, foam, metals and mechanisms, as well as complete seat systems. Our interior components include: door panels; overhead systems, sun visors, overhead consoles; in addition to center and floor consoles and instrument panels. Our electronics products include integrated electronics - displays, instrument clusters, connectivity systems and body electronics; as well as electrical energy management and the HomeLink Wireless Control System.

Kevin: How do people submit solutions, and what process do you have in place to review submissions?

JCI: As with most of these websites, in order to keep the flow of information clean and to avoid disclosure of proprietary information, all submitters must have issued patents or patent applications for their technology.  To review submissions, we have established an expert review process.  Each idea submitted is available to all experts for review, but individual ideas are categorized and sent to the appropriate experts to ensure the right people are notified immediately that an idea in their area of expertise has been submitted for their review. Inventors are notified if there is interest, typically within three months.

Kevin: What technology interests are you seeking from your website?

JCI: We are particularly interested in a few key technology areas.  These include surface / thin-film technology, new cover materials, bio-polymers and natural fiber materials, advanced high strength steels and structural composite materials and the associated technologies to form and join these materials, “smart” materials, injection mold tooling technology that reduces cycle time, technologies to reduce component assembly time and cost (such as unique fastening, assembly automation and in-plant logistics), sensor and actuator technology for electronification of interior features, unique technology to achieve downsized mechanisms like recliners and adjusters, and software tools to improve predictive analysis and design optimization.  We're also always interested in solutions that can reduce product weight, costs, and/or improve environmental sustainability.

Kevin: Why is your product set a good one for Open Innovation, and what kinds of solution providers are you seeking?

JCI: Our broad product scope requires solutions from an array of technologies to create successful systems. For example, many of our products serve a structural role and are important for performance and safety.  But what are ways to weld/join different kinds of components and materials?  This is something that is being addressed in a variety of industries (not just automotive), and therefore, new approaches are always of interest. As for the types of solution providers, we are looking to this website to communicate differently with our traditional supply base, but also of significant interest is the ability to extend our network to the many academic and non-profit research institutions, as well as to inventors working in diverse technologies and other companies searching to license applicable technology.

Kevin: What kinds of results/successes are you already seeing?

JCI: We are pleased with what we’ve seen so far. The submissions have been steadily coming in, and our internal network of experts has been enjoying the experience of reviewing the ideas and connecting with the inventors who have made the submissions to our site.  More than a few submissions have been technologies that have potential for application in more than one product area.  These submissions have been particularly exciting for us.  For example, just last week we had a series of meetings with potential solution providers, and we had a particularly interesting company in for a visit to explore their technology as it might be applied to automotive seating and interiors.

Kevin: What were your biggest obstacles in getting this initiative complete, and what advice would you have for other companies considering creating an Open Innovation-focused needs website?

JCI:  As you know, Kevin, executive support of Open Innovation is important for the success of these initiatives.   Innovation is a core value for Johnson Controls, and we have had great support from our leadership team, so getting this initiative up and running was not a significant challenge. Our challenge is to make connections with the innovative people outside of our organization with whom we have not yet met.  We want every inventor with technology applicable to Johnson Controls to know that we are open to their ideas and know how to share them with us. 

As for advice for other companies, I suggest that having a robust process for reviewing the ideas once they are received is critical.  We are seeing successes, in part, because we have a system in place to ensure that, while all of our experts have access to the submissions, individual experts are specifically notified when an idea in their area of expertise is received.  The initiative can’t be successful if the review process doesn’t expose the best ideas for follow through.