Collaborative University Competitions

Collaborative University Competitions
- A Know-Who Based Approach to Cost-Efficient
and Fast Innovation

Sigvald J. Harryson
Dr. Oec, St. Gallen University
PhD, Göteborg University

Managing Director
sigvald@harrysonconsulting.com
+46 730 348 965

© www.harrysonconsulting.com 1

Know-Who Based Innovation is about breaking old
patterns of R&D people who evolve from being ‘stuck
internally’ …


… to collaborate more closely with universities, so as
to reduce time and cost of breakthrough innovation…


… and leverage Academic Brainpower to reach the
Holy Grail of their Industry ahead of competition –
Innovation Leadership!


Typical Steps in a Collaborative University Competition
– Timeline 6-8 months depending on complexity and university schedules

Module I + II Module III Module IV Module V Module VI
Strategic
Framing the Framework with
Goals of the Clear Selection
Competition Criteria
Intelligence to
Select the Best
University Teams Hundreds of
Ideas and Possible
Kick-Off + Approaches
Coaching to
Build Initial
Concepts 5-15 Initial
Concepts
Concept Creation
and Mid-term
Review
3-6 Business
Concept Cases
Consolidation, C
ompletion and
Feedback

Final Hand over
Review, Concept of Finally
Evaluation and Selected
Patent Protection Solution

Final Product Formulations,
Coaching of the University Teams – Throughout the Collaborative
Laboratory Material
Competition and Test Data


Module Descriptions

Module I Making a very clear description of one or more R&D/Innovation Challenges. If
more than one, our practical comparison tool is applied.

Module II
Development of a clear Collaboration Agreement to provide effective and fair
incentives for the University Teams while securing full IP ownership for our
client.

Module III
Leveraging our global network to identify the suited University Teams,
Professors and in some cases, industry specialists.

Kicking-off the Competition while securing Collaboration through ongoing
Module IV
Coaching, Open Communication and Joint Performance Reviews.

Concept development among the competing University Teams supported by
Module V
a Mid-term Review and ongoing Coaching and Client Feedback for effective
Knowledge Sharing thereby Catalyzing the Competition.

Module VI Final Review followed by Concept/Solution evaluations carried out by a
committee who picks the Winning Team. HCG assists accordingly to secure
Accelerated Implementation and Patent Protection.


Example of a University Team participating in a Collaborative
University Competition (Glass Ceramic Example)

 One Professor focused
on Advanced Materials

 One Associate Professor
focused on Material
Science

 Two PhD students

 Eight Master Students
doing their final year
project work, who take
the opportunity to focus
their project on
Challenge – while getting
intensive coaching from
the Professors and the
HCG coaches


“In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities.
In the expert's mind there are few.”
- Shunryu Suzuki (1904-1971)

A strong track-record from more than a decade of
Breakthrough Innovation with some of the World’s
Industry Leaders

• Potential Rare-earth
material Replacement
• Setting a new standard for
• Cutting ammonia emissions (2012)
digital writing (2003)
by 95% (2008)
• The World’s first carbon negative
• Solving the Locking-Pin wooden towers for small scale
Challenge (2006) wind turbines (2010-11)
• Developing revolutionizing
Downstream Equipment at • The new ICEpower
half COGS (2007) conversion module for audio
applications (1999)

• Breakthroughs in Functional • Enhancing lifetime of the carbon strips (2010) • New Crowdsourcing
• Business model innovation in Clean Urban • Breakthrough Polymer
Foods 2001) System (2004-2006)
Mobility (2011) (2012)

• Ceramic Brake System (2001) World Leading Dental
• New manufacturing method for Ceramics Company
lightweight carbon-reinforced
body parts (2004) • Doubling both flexural strength
• Developing a new napkin and fracture toughness while
folding machine (2008-10) enhancing translucency (2011)


How to Define an Innovation Challenge?

 Background
– Provide a general description of the innovation challenge.
– Describe why and how the specific challenge is important to your business.

 Drivers of Change
– Describe the drivers that urge your company to focus on this particular challenge.

 Impact of Solution
– Describe the effect a breakthrough solution will have on which areas of your business today
as well as in the future.

 Outline of Desired Outcome
– Describe in detail what the desired solution should deliver (include the Critical Quality
Parameters, CTQs, you will define for the solution). At a later stage, we use this description
to jointly develop six strict Evaluation Criteria, which is used to guide the University Teams
and assess their solutions at the Final Review.


How to Assess and Compare Different Innovation
Challenges? – Two Parameters (1)

Business Impact

 Impact on Innovation Leadership
– How would a breakthrough in this area affect your market position in terms of innovation
leadership?

 Business Impact of a Breakthrough
– How would a breakthrough in this area affect your company’s business?

 Spin-off Benefits
– To what extent would spin-off benefits cross-fertilize other business units and impact the
company’s business?


How to Assess and Compare Different Innovation
Challenges? – Two Parameters (2)

Relative Ease of Solving

 Internal efforts carried out to date in this area
– What previous efforts have been expended on the identification of a new solution, and to
what extend can these be shared among the university teams?

 Clarity and availability of scientific areas/disciplines
– Which scientific areas/disciplines do you perceive as natural and vital to consider when
pursuing a breakthrough solution?

 Clarity of goal formulation and accomplishment
– How easy/difficult is it to give a clear brief on the desired breakthrough? And to what extent
is it possible to assess and determine if the criteria have been met and the challenge
solved?


parison Chart

chart illustrates the comparison of three Innovation Challenges. If the challenge ratings have been rated in a relative per
es in the comparison, we Innovation Challenge is the far North-East corner is optimal.
Innovation Challenge Evaluation Matrix

5.0

4.0
Busimess Impract

Project 1 - The Ammonia
Abatement Challenge
3.0
Project 2- Bbbb

Project 3 - Cccc
2.0

1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Relative Ease of Solving


Appendix – Reference Cases

 Porsche

 Tetra Pak

 DSM

 Bombardier

 Leading Dental Ceramics Company

 Philips

 AkzoNobel


Company Profile

 Porsche is a unique company with strong ideals. Their values and philosophies permeate
through everything they do to ensure that they always remain true to their principles. They
constantly meet their own high demands and have a definite idea about who they are and how
they approach things. As a result, despite what others may be doing, Porsche actively seek to
stretch boundaries and are committed to continual improvement.

Innovation Challenge

 Through Porsche’s clear strategy to promote breakthrough ideas, Wendelin Wiedeking (CEO)
wanted Porsche to be the first to commercialize ceramic brakes for street cars and with the
strict deadline of the Carrera GT launch in 2002.

Outcome (2001) – World’s First Ceramic Disc Brake

 Porsche Ceramic Composite Brake (PCCB) – the World’s first commercially available ceramic
disc brake with performance only found on Formula 1 cars: incomparable longevity, heat
resistance and braking distance, 50% weight reduction, immediate brake contact and no fading.

 Porsche beat both BMW and Mercedes who had a half year head start, they license the
technology to competing car manufacturers and have even applied the technology to clutches.


Company Profile

 Tetra Pak is the world's leading food processing and packaging solutions company. Working
closely with their customers and suppliers, they provide safe, innovative and environmentally
sound products that each day meet the needs of hundreds of millions of people.


 For over 20 years Tetra Pak’s R&D department had been trying to overcome a problem
caused by broken locking pins used in their packing machines. Unable to solve the challenge,
they had to ask customers to replace the pin after 1,000 hours of operation to avoid failure
during operations.

Outcome (2006) – New Locking Pin Design 100 Times Stronger

 Different flow and modal analyses revealed a formerly unknown root cause of the problem. In
turn, the max stress point on the locking pin was discovered, which lead to the design and
development of a locking pin with a lifetime over 100,000 hours of operation compared to the
initial 1,000 hours.


Company Profile

 DSM is a global science-based company active in health, nutrition and materials. By
connecting its unique competencies in Life Sciences and Materials Sciences, DSM is driving
economic prosperity, environmental progress and social advances to create sustainable value
for all stakeholders. Stamicarbon is the global market leader in the development and licensing
of urea technology. Stamicarbon is the licensing subsidiary of DSM.


 EU regulation forced Stamicarbon, hence DSM, to reduce their ammonia emission from their
urea manufacturing process with at least 90%.

Outcome (2008) – Breakthrough in Ammonia Emission Abatement

 A breakthrough process able to reduce the ammonia emission by 95% and urea dust by 99%
was developed. The process removes the ammonia through adsorption using activated
zeolites. Adsorbents are injected into the airstream and separated using a baghouse filter,
which also separates urea dust from the airstream. Emissions are reduced by at least 95%
while the consumption of ammonia is significantly reduced as well. Global patent awarded.


Company Profile

 Bombardier is the world’s only manufacturer of both planes and trains. Looking far ahead while
delivering now, Bombardier is evolving mobility worldwide and making it easier for people to
connect with one another.


 For many years Bombardier’s has had a wish to increase the longevity of their pantographs,
because it is an expensive, cumbersome and dangerous process for their operating customers
to replace them, hence longevity really matters.

Outcome (2010) – Increased Carbon Strip Longevity by Factor 10

 Two solutions combined into a breakthrough that increases the carbon strip’s longevity by
factor 10 – while also enhancing the lifetime of the contact wire (catenary).


World Leading Dental
Ceramics Company

Company Profile

 The company is a global leader in implant, restorative and regenerative dentistry. They offer
their products and services to dental professionals and dental laboratories around the world.


 While the client was already perceived as the innovation leader of their industry, they wanted
to develop the next generation of dental ceramic material before any competitor.

Outcome (2011) – A New to the World Dental Ceramic Material

 A new breakthrough translucent ceramic material was developed, which doubled flexural
strength from 300 to 600 MPa and doubled fracture toughness from 3 to 6 MPa∙m0.5, while
maintaining the expected level of translucency comparable to a real tooth.


Company Profile

 Philips Research is a global organization that helps Philips introduce meaningful innovations
that improve people’s lives. They provide options in the area of health and well-being for both
developed and emerging markets.
Healthcare

 The Innovation Challenge was concerned with the replacement of a rare-earth based material.

 A great number of industries struggle with the scarcity of the rare-earth elements, which has
made prices high, volatile and supplies uncertain in a market where demand has generally
been increasing.

Outcome (2012) – Potential Rare-earth material Replacement Consumer Lifestyle
 Apart from carrying out an invaluable amount of research in the area, the winning team
discovered a material with the potential to replace the rare-earth material.

Lighting

Company Profile

 AkzoNobel is the largest global paints and coatings company and is a leading producer of
specialty chemicals.


 The Emission Challenge was concerned with the discovery of a method to make state-of-the-
art decorative paints environmentally friendly beyond any current industry standard.

 Paint Industry has focused on reducing unwanted compounds in paint formulations for over 20
years.

Outcome (2012) – Breakthrough Polymer

 A new breakthrough technology was unlocked, which has the potential to revolutionize the way
decorative paints are formulated AND set new standards for the decorative paints market
worldwide.


Turning Torso Office 275 Höh-Rohnenweg 16
Lilla Varvsgatan 14 CH-8832 Wilen b. Wollerau/Switzerland
211 15 Malmö/Sweden Telephone: +41 (0)79 291 84 78
Telephone: +46 (0)40 30 59 66
Swiss Office Administrator:
Scandinavia Office Administrator:
Sabine@harrysonconsulting.com
Jacky@harrysonconsulting.com

Sigvald J. Harryson
Dr. Oec, St. Gallen University
PhD, Göteborg University

Managing Director
Sigvald@harrysonconsulting.com
+46 723 50 49 81


Collaborative University Competitions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Collaborative University Competitions

Similar to Collaborative University Competitions (20)

More from 2010iknowwho

More from 2010iknowwho (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Collaborative University Competitions