Open Source Innovation Factory, OW2con11, Nov 24-25, 2011, Paris

716 views
660 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
716
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Open Source Innovation Factory, OW2con11, Nov 24-25, 2011, Paris

  1. 1. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Source Innovation Factory

 Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano 
 in cooperation with Engineering Group
 [Our Framework equipped with Innovation Metrics can dramatically reduce the time required to transfer an innovative project to a real environment]
  2. 2. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Outlook   Open Issues in Open Innovation   Our Proposal   Our Framework   Future work
  3. 3. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Innovation   72% of company executives rank innovation in their top 3 priorities (Boston Consulting Group, 2006)   80% of new product results will tend to come from only 20% R&D projects (Eduardo, 2003)   successful companies cancelled as many innovation projects as non-successful companies. However, successful companies were able to cancel unattractive projects much earlier in the process (Ogawa & Ketner, 1997)
  4. 4. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Innovation   The central idea behind open innovation is that in a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies cannot afford to rely entirely on their own research, but should instead buy or license processes or inventions (i.e. patents) from other companies. In addition, internal inventions not being used in a firm's business should be taken outside the company (Chesbrough, 2003).
  5. 5. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Innovation
  6. 6. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Issues in Open Innovation   Reduce time to identify unproductive projects   Understand the synergy that are potentially relating different projects   Represent Innovation Activity   Measure Innovation Activity   Report on Innovation Activity
  7. 7. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Source Innovation Factory   Mixes three complementary approaches: 1.  Innovation Factory Metamodel (IFM), proposed in the ARISTOTELE project (www.aristotele-ip.eu) 2.  Open source platform SpagoBI (www.spagobi.org), LOAP and Reporting 3.  Knowbots, advanced tools for the acquisition of concepts from internal and external knowledge sources
  8. 8. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Open Source Innovation Factory
  9. 9. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Innovation Factory Metamodel
  10. 10. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Innovation Metrics • Goal 1: Innovation Level Improvement o Q1.1: Which is the level of innovative knowledge exploited in the Organization? o Q1.2: How much are innovative the new products? • Goal 2: Quality of Innovation Sources o Q2.1: Which is the quality of sources of innovation process? • Goal 3: Open Innovation Permeability o Q3.1: To what extend the customer contribution is exploited? o Q3.2: To what extend the concepts coming from competitors' sites are exploited? o Q3.3: Evaluate the level of technologies that are transferred by the analysis of competitors o Q3.4: How much internal proposals influence innovative products? • Goal 4: Return of Innovation Investment o Q4.1: How much innovation process produces profits? o Q4.2: How much innovation process costs? o Q4.3: Indirect Advantages
  11. 11. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org . www.ow2.org. Innovation Metrics Goal 1: Innovation Level Improvement Q1.1: Which is the level of innovative knowledge exploited in the Organization? M1.1.1: no. accesses to blog/forum marked as innovation sources M1.1.2: no. concepts transferred from innovation sources to produced documents (e.g. cut&paste) Q1.2: How much are innovative the new products? M1.2.1: no. tags describing new functionalities / no. concepts in innovative sources tag cloud M1.2.2: no. requirements covered by new products
  12. 12. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Innovation Metrics Goal 2: Quality of Innovation Sources Q2.1: Which is the quality of sources of innovation process? M2.1.1: % of external requirements, coming from outside the organisation (e.g. analyzing innovative sources) M2.1.2: % of internal requirements, coming from inside the organisation (e.g. from internal meetings) M2.1.3: % of customer requirements, coming directly from the customer M2.1.4: % of new products implementing external requirements M2.1.5: % of new products implementing internal requirements M2.1.6: % of new products implementing customer requirements M2.1.7: % of human resources that contribute to the innovation process
  13. 13. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Innovation Metrics Goal 4: Return of Innovation Investment Q4.1: How much innovation process produces profits? M4.1.1: no. new products sold per month M4.1.2: no. new products sold per week M4.1.3: no. new customers M4.1.4: % revenue from new products M4.1.5: % new product within deadline Q4.2: How much innovation process costs? M4.2.1: time-to-market of new products M4.2.2: time-to-market of changes to existing products M4.2.3: budget spent on human resources training M4.2.4: no. competences involved in innovation process M4.2.5: no. human resources involved in innovation process M4.2.6: no. man-months spent to realize new product M4.2.7: no. man-months spent to realize changes to existing products M4.2.8: average number of training hours per human resource Q4.3: Indirect Advantages M4.3.1: % customer satisfaction with new products M4.3.2: % of human resources reaching desired competence level after training M4.3.3: % difference in productivity before and after training
  14. 14. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org SpagoBI
  15. 15. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org SpagoBI
  16. 16. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org SpagoBI
  17. 17. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org KnowBots •  KB consists of two distinct modules which interact with each other •  One module is running locally in the workspace of the worker •  A second module is a remote server module that interrogates various database services across the network and provides the results to a user agent running in the local workspace •  This way we can track the information that are provided by the Knowbots and are used in the workspace
  18. 18. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Scenario: AVIO •  AVIO traditionally run two separate business: •  Plant in Torino selling engines •  Plant in Brindisi providing overhaul services •  AVIO has no foresight on the mid-term arrivals of engines and is unable to optimize plans and procurement processes. •  FLEET MANAGEMENT •  centralizing engine monitoring and scheduling their overhaul process •  optimizing the flow of engines in arrival and reducing congestion or underutilization
  19. 19. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org Lesson Learned •  Access to data •  process (competences, requirements) •  products (requirements, ROI) •  Define Innovation Profile based on successful story to support comparability among past and running processes
  20. 20. OW2Con 2011, November 23 -24, Orange Labs, Paris www.ow2.org This work is co-funded by the European Commission as part of the ARISTOTELE project (FP7-ICT-2009-5 –257886)

×