• Save
Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009

on

  • 1,255 views

Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009

Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009
MSc Thesis, Free University Amsterdam

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,255
Views on SlideShare
1,254
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009 Open Innovation Among Dutch MNEs - qualitative research among 10 MNEs - Manag. Summary 2009 Document Transcript

  • Master Thesis Business Administration OPEN INNOVATION AMONG DUTCH MNEs: AN EXPLORATORY INVENTORY OF MOTIVES, EXPECTANCIES AND BARRIERS Author: Haydar Azhari Supervisor: Prof.dr. H. Gerrits 1800213@student.vu.nl Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Master of Science in Business Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands Administration, 2008-2009 Specialization E-Business & IT-Industry August 29, 2009
  • Don't agonize. Organize. ~ Florynce Kennedy If you want to build a ship, don't herd people together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea. ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • OPEN INNOVATION AMONG DUTCH MNEs: AN EXPLORATORY INVENTORY OF MOTIVES, EXPECTANCIES AND BARRIERS Abstract Open innovation has gained increased attention in the literature since it was coined by Chesbrough (2003). Its use is widespread, especially by large firms. Prior research predominantly focused on US-based technological firms, and no satisfactory inventory has been provided of open innovation among large firms in an EU-country. The aim of this study is therefore to explore the motives, and, expectancies and barriers of MNEs in the Netherlands to make use of open innovation next to closed innovation. In-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted with ten large firms for this end. Findings indicate that the underlay of the twelve motives for open innovation is to strengthen the strong elements of closed innovation and compensate for the weak elements. The eleven expectancies were discerned into strategic expectancies (long term) and practical expectancies. Barriers were found to be of an organizational and cultural nature, both within the firm and outside the firm. Key words Open innovation • Closed innovation • MNEs • Motives • Expectancies • Barriers
  • Open innovation among Dutch MNEs: An exploratory inventory of motives, expectancies and barriers Thesis as part of the Master of Science program in Business Administration (2008-2009), speciality E-Business & IT-Industry Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands Author: Haydar Azhari | Student number: 1800213 Ms. Oslofjordweg 253 NL – 1033 SL Amsterdam Phone: +31 6 336 120 99 E-mail: 1800213@student.vu.nl | haydar.azhari@gmail.com Thesis supervisor: Prof.dr. J.W.M. (Han) Gerrits Knowledge, Information, and Networks Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1105, room 3A-29 NL – 1081 HV Amsterdam Phone: +31 (0) 20 598 3627 E-mail: hgerrits@feweb.vu.nl
  • Foreword Innovation has been going since time immemorial. Verily, it is inherent to the human nature. It all begins very simple: an idea or a vision in the mind of the individual, and develop it further with peers. Inventions made centuries ago of which seems so logical to us that we not thinks about its genesis, all began by some thinking, trying and configuring by a bunch of out of the box thinking people not hindered by the mainstream paradigm. As Pablo Picasso said: “I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it.” Innovation is thus an iterative process, characterized by its experimental matter of course, not determined or bounded by prefixed pathways. In our contemporary world of speedy changes, globalization and recession, organizations try to speed up and excel in innovation. But the highly competitive nature of business made the focus primarily on self success and the subsequent protection of that success, losing precious time and effort that could be invested in tomorrow‟s innovation. With advancing years, organizations realized that the traditional patterns of in- house innovation are dwindling. Today‟s pioneering organizations are those that by trial and error are renewing themselves and the world by bundling their forces. By doing open innovation. Back to basics is what lies behind this progress: one cannot survive on its own, collective efforts open unknown doors. Unboundedness and patience is the way to move in this direction, if we want to follow in the footsteps of history‟s greatest innovators in these times of economic downfall. vi
  • One could guess that this global economical crisis enforces upon organizations to cut down their innovation activities, in order to concentrate on short term financial stability. Short sightedness however might badly effect long term developments. Organizations anyhow need a long breath to deal with the expected and unexpected challenges of this crisis. We are witnessing history: it will be business Darwinism as we have never seen it before. The winners will be those organizations that excel in balancing between handling short term pressures and fostering long term growth opportunities. And open innovation might be one of their many important instruments for success. This thesis is about open innovation. I was highly interested in getting to know why organizations do open innovation. I wanted to know their true motives. For this end, it was obvious that I had to conduct in-depth interview with large Dutch corporations. My first thought was: that won‟t be a sinecure. Thus I had some doubts beforehand whether my research would be feasible, whether I could find enough organizations that are willing to participate in my research. Fortunately I tend to have an optimistic nature, so I searched for interviewees for all I was worth. And eventually, I ended up interviewing eleven organizations, face-to- face as well as by telephone. The actual conduct was likewise challenging, as is the case with many things in our professional life that we do for the first time. I was confident however that it would work out just fine, as I knew that I was going to deal with mature people: professionals who are willing to reflect on their organization. As a result, I ended up gaining good insight in the business field of those organizations, and their vii
  • pursuit of innovation power. Open innovation seems promising for the future, as practically all firms believed that collaborative innovation practices will only increase. Also I became more and more interested in following business news. The business analyses of the companies I interviewed on sites like Z24.nl have let me reflect more on the companies, and in how they are putting effort in coping with the effects of the current global recession. For me this thesis marks the final accomplishment of the Master of Science in Business Administration program 2008-2009 at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. It was an exciting and challenging year, with this thesis being the stiffest yet most valuable intellectual experience. It took me three and a half month to complete this longitudinal research, especially due to a time-consuming yet highly interesting data collection process. The brainwork was during the whole course of the thesis at its height. Fortunately, my productivity was greatly stimulated by listening softly on the background to relaxing Turkish instrumental music and soundtrack music by Patrick Doyle. The magnificence of Doyle‟s music lies in the combination of melancholy and suspense in his compositions, which increased my reflective power I guess. This is not surprising, as the salutary effect of (instrumental) music on the individuals‟ productivity has been scientifically proven (e.g. Dr. Georgi Lozanov). Therefore, I would personally advocate that organizations stimulate their employees to listen to instrumental music softly on the background while working, for it relax one‟s mood and so enhances the productivity (see viii
  • also BrainRadio.nl). After all, the last thing firms need right now are stressful employees who lose their temper, vitality, and, creativity. In sum, my motivation was to produce a highly qualitative study on open innovation that is useful for both theoreticians and practitioners. It took me hence an overdose of meticulousness, perseverance and intensive „innovation zeal‟ during the last couple of months, but with some dashing vision I can say that I have produced a creditable study that hopefully sheds new light on organizations‟ pursuit of (open) innovation power. Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to several people. Firstly I would like to thank all the interviewees of the multinationals who were kind enough to take the time and effort to participate in my research. I am also grateful to my thesis supervisor, prof.dr Han Gerrits, for his supervision and feedback. This corporate innovation wizard provided me initially with this topic, and from there I had to pick it up and work it out. At last, I greatly thank my family and friends for their great support and patience during these past months of hard work and throughout my life in the past, present and for what will come in the (bright) future. “Le travail paie un jour.” Haydar Azhari. August 2009 ix
  • Management summary Open innovation practices are nowadays prevalently used next to closed innovation by many large firms in different industries. Open innovation are the structural practices of the organization to connect with channels inside the organization previously not involved in the innovation process and/or commercial or societal channels outside the organizational borders in order to find new ideas or combine them with internal ideas and if possible co-develop and co-market them. Closed innovation is characterized by the firm relying almost exclusively on its own resources for idea generation and the subsequent development of ideas into products and services (e.g. manufacturing, marketing , distributing etc.). Open innovation and closed innovation are now increasingly interwoven. It is however not known in detail what the motives are of large firms to make use of open innovation next to closed innovation. What are the motives of Dutch MNEs to make use of open innovation next to closed innovation? This is the main research question that is central in this explorative study, which aims to reveal the motives of MNEs in the Netherland to make use of open innovation next to closed innovation. In addition the study also focuses on the expectancies firms have of it (in terms of benefits) and the barriers they encounter in using and optimizing open innovation. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten large Dutch organizations. Open innovation was operationalized by three different types: inter-organizational networking (with parties outside the x
  • firm); intra-organizational networking (open innovation within the firm); and; consumer-centric networking (open innovation with the consumer base). Findings show that motives for open innovation among Dutch MNEs are strategic and practical in nature, meant for strengthening the strong elements of closed innovation and to compensate for the weak elements of closed innovation. Open innovation thus complements closed innovation. Strong elements of closed innovation are: Technological Innovation Factor, Competitive Factor, Incremental Innovation, and, Safe Revenue Streams. Weak elements of closed innovation are Traditional Work Patterns and an overall Inadequate Process for certain circumstances in the environment of firms. Expectancies in terms of benefits that Dutch MNEs have of open innovation are:  strategic expectancies, concerning the competitiveness of the firm and long term oriented; and;  practical expectancies, concerning the human (creativity) factor in the organization, marketing benefits (applicable in intra-organizational networking and consumer-centric networking), cost management and risk sharing, and, practicality in working out and testing propositions and concepts. Barriers that Dutch MNEs face in using and optimizing open innovation are organizational barriers and cultural barriers, both within and outside the organization. xi
  • Contents Abstract iii Foreword vi Management summary x Chapter 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction of the topic ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Research objectives ................................................................................ 3 1.3 Research question and sub questions .................................................. 3 1.4 Relevance ................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Scope ........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Research method .................................................................................... 6 1.7 Thesis outline .......................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework 9 2.1 Closed innovation................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 The virtuous cycle of innovation ............................................... 9 2.1.2 Types of innovation .................................................................. 11 2.2 Open innovation .................................................................................. 13 2.2.1 Definition.................................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Accelerators ................................................................................ 15 2.2.3 Benefits ....................................................................................... 18 2.2.4 Barriers ........................................................................................ 20 2.2.5 Types of open innovation ........................................................ 20 2.2.5.1 Three core processes ........................................................... 21 xii
  • 2.2.5.1.1 Commercial versus societal user-driven open innovation .... 25 2.3 Open versus closed innovation .......................................................... 34 Chapter 3. Research Methodology 37 3.1 Research approach ............................................................................... 37 3.2 Data collection ...................................................................................... 38 3.3 Operationalization ................................................................................ 47 3.4 Data analysis .......................................................................................... 49 Chapter 4. Research Results 55 4.1 Open innovation in Dutch MNEs ..................................................... 55 4.1.1 Inter-organizational networking .............................................. 55 4.1.1.1 Motives ............................................................................. 56 4.1.1.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 63 4.1.1.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 69 4.1.2 Intra-organizational networking .............................................. 73 4.1.2.1 Motives ............................................................................. 74 4.1.2.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 77 4.1.2.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 81 4.1.3 Consumer-centric networking ................................................. 82 4.1.3.1 Motives ............................................................................. 83 4.1.3.2 Expectancies ..................................................................... 84 4.1.3.3 Barriers ............................................................................ 86 4.1.4 Overview..................................................................................... 88 4.2 Closed innovation in Dutch MNEs ................................................... 90 4.2.1 Strong elements.......................................................................... 90 4.2.2 Weak elements ........................................................................... 93 xiii
  • 4.2.3 Overview..................................................................................... 95 4.3 The innovation context per MNE ..................................................... 95 Chapter 5. Conclusion and Discussion 98 5.1 Conclusion and discussion .................................................................. 98 5.2 Managerial implications ..................................................................... 107 5.3 Limitations and directions for future research ............................... 107 References 110 Appendices Appendix I: Interview Questions ........................................................... 122 Appendix II: Data Matrix ........................................................................ 123 xiv
  • Appendix II: Data Matrix Q MNE MNE1 Shell MNE2 Deloitte MNE3 Sara Lee MNE4 Akzo Nobel MNE5 Océ Q1 Mono-disciplinary, Company focused on The classic closed Innovation CI R&D is some 70-80% of all Technology-driven CI R&D, Inter-disciplinary business services (tax, audit, Funnel (stagegating); Semi- research activities – innovation multidisciplinary – innovation R&D ; financial advisory. closed innovation process funnel - Technology driven funnel, stagegating – consultancy) – safe revenue industry; Partnering however Development different CI-CR&D ; CI-II streams; CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP ; CI-II has always been the case, semi- department than Resarch ; In CI-CR&D ; CI-SRS; CI-II closed innov.process general very closed, but partnering was done when CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP needed (semi-closed) CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP Q2 Incremental innovation Working multidisciplinary, Adequate process, building large part of work; Well Adequate for innovation multifunctionally – preliminary Adequate for technological- technology that corresponds established process ; within business sphere, i.e. market research; Sound for driven solutions ; Incremental with customers‟ needs – loyal Adequate for incremental innovation incremental innovation, innovation large part of customers=safe revenue technological technological innovation; Good development activities; (no real streams 70% of revenue innovation, which is a CI-TWP ; CI-II profit rendering results, fixed radical innovation; Techn. recurring; Techn.innovation competitive factor business models important for comp.position and breakthrough products CI-CF ; CI-II ; CI-TIF ; of firm important for competiteveness; CI-SRS ; CI-II ; CI-CR&D ; CI-TIF ; CI- Incremental innovation large SRS CI-TIF ; CI-II ; CI-CF part of work CI-II ; CI-TIF ; CI-CF ; CI- SRS Q3 CI difficult for radical Hierarchy: trad. work innovation; not easy to patterns, no right conditions Difficult to find growth When low internal speed and Medium-sized firm in industry, generate radical ideas ; (time, budget) for working opportunities and bring fast to flexibility; No time and Not leading firm in industry, Traditional work out (deviant) ideas and make market; Difficult organization patience to develop new less budget than HP/Canon, patterns reason of innovation; not right climate wise to develop new business competences and expertise brings with it limitations; CI comfort zone for fostering radical models not adequate for changed (objectivistic thinking) – innovation and creating new environment that is highly not very dynamic; business models CI-TWP competitive (rel. low time-2- 123
  • Incremental innov. CI-TWP market) reduces „real‟ innovation CI-IP CI-IP ; CI-TWP Q4 Way to find renewal Provide platform for the org. Interacting with outside world, Pragmatic way of realizing a „options‟, facilitate community to generate and bringing forth a fruitful particular goal by utilizing OI is about using IP in new (radical) innovation OI- work out ideas dialogue for the org. external channels markets and gain growth MTV-SIV opportunities Q5 Intra-organizational Partnerships with external Partnerships with external „incubator‟, to collect Company-wide innovation parties, e.g. suppliers ; parties (e.g. suppliers, other Partnering with other firms ideas from employees in vehicle focused on Focus on customers to gain firms); Joint development to advance tech. in firms‟ core non-hierarchal way, employees insight in their preferences programs markets or gain foot on new work ideas out, test their OI-INTRA_ON markets; Doing research in an viability; links with OI-CONS_CN ; OI- OI-INTER_ON open campus to develop new universities and thought INTER_ON applications leaders OI-INTER_ON OI- INTRA_ON ; OI- INTER_ON Q6 Create structural vehicle Structural innovation vehicle Collect new ideas; Solve Extend firms‟ competences & Extend competences & to collect new ideas – special budget made technological problems and resources; Obtain external resources, e.g. gain root to (change org.dynamics), available; Create radical needs; Gain external ideas, knowledge and market; Create radical facilitate and accelerate innovation; Stimulate knowledge; Stimulate. org technology; Accelerate innovation for current core (radical) innovation; org.dyanmics; Collect new dynamics; Extend org. Innovation – adequate markets; Use research center spend money on ideas; Accelerate new and competences and resources; innovation budget to stimulate for new tech. development, generating innov.; current innov.projects Better speed to market org.vitality and better speed to thus have a structural (specific) problem OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-PS ; market; innovation vehicle; Better solving OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-EK ; coping with environment – SOV ; OI-MTV-SIV ; OI- OI-MTV-SOV OI-MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-NI ; speed 2 market, also important OI-MTV-NI ; OI- MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-STM OI-MTV-NT ; OI-MTV- for org.dynamics. Large budget MTV-SIV ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-LIB ECR ; OI-MTV-EK ; OI- plays role in going outside org. CRI ; OI-MTV-PS ; OI- MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV-SOV MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-STM OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV-SIV SOV ; OI-MTV-AIP OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-NT OI-MTV-STM ; OI-MTV-LIB 124
  • OI-MTV-SOV Q7 – n/a – Social within the org.; foster Commercial goal (for problem- – n/a – – n/a – innovative culture in org. OI- solving, e.g. NineSigma) ; Social EXP-FIM goal with consumers Q8 Testing new concepts; Corporate level attention: New growth opportunities – New growth opportunities – Sense of urgency for broader scope for market better competitiveness; Possible access to new markets; Finding new growth action and renewal – entry new products/services reduction of costs; Testing Increase profit; sense of opportunities – enter new foster innov. mindset ; – sense of urgency and viability new ideas and urgency; Test (feasibility) new markets with specific New growth render new revenue streams concepts; Sense of urgency for concepts – possibly reducing technology to increase opportunities; and stimul.compet. in action; (customer) Value costs and risks and creating competitiveness– by doing Commercial success; bus.sector; new growth Creation; Have more innovative value; More entrepreneurial research and testing new techn. Competitive continuity opportunities; testing org. spirit; Learning while doing spirit; Gain new skills, i.e. and concepts - also by feasibility new ideas and and sharper internal insight; Use learning by doing reducing costs and risks OI-EXP-NGO ; OI- bus.cases; useful for as marketing tool; through partnering; EXP-CC ; OI-EXP- publicity/marketing means; OI-EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP-CS ; TFNC ; OI-EXP-CS ; useful for (org./professional) OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-NGO ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- learning means OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP-SU ANM FIM OI-EXP-TFNC OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-NGO ; NGO ECR NGO ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI- OI-EXP-RCR ; OI-EXP-FIM OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-RCR OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-RCR EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP-NGO OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-FIM Q9 Actively search for Important to have senior Use more existing channels, Always make goals clear, more external ideas also commitment/expertise to partners, build more current specific more concrete, to Upper management was possible (next to internal make ideas more succesfull network instead of looking for make OI more efficient and skeptical in begin, but as result ideas) elsewhere effective of success team + budget OI-OBS-LPK extended OI-MTV-LIB Q10 Not always easy to sell At first lack of expertise, Some internal barriers to Culture determines type of Complexity in org issues like tested concepts to other senior knowlegde; communicate with outside partnership; Partner selection administrative processes, subsidiaries Decreasing attention in org. world, difficult to accept this is not a sinecure: geographical overhead; IP issues have to OI-OBS-MPF community; way of thinking and working distance is not handy in fixed well beforehand; Not 125
  • practice; Not each partner has org. can function in OI context OI-OBS-LPK ; OI-OBS- OI-OBS-CUL same focus, priorities as you; OI-OBS-CMX ; OI-OBS-IPI; CUL Intellectual Property issues can OI-OBS-CUL be problematic OI-OBS-CUL ; OI-OBS-PS ; OI-OBS-MPF ; OI-OBS-IPI Q11 Life blood of org., (Safeguarding and CI is stable process, fruitful CI means more risks involved essential for innov. in optimizing) core business Effective way for product tech. wise, good competitive in innov. process than in earlier this type of industry activities; Operational development factor times CI-TIF excellence CI-TWP ; CI-II CI-TIF ; CI-CF Q12 Develop new (techn.) Create better conditions for Effective way for developing concepts and new innovative org.culture concepts; 2-way OI makes org. more dynamic OI not necessity, but offers business models to OI-MTV-SIV ; OI-MTV- communication and more possibilities and make it successful. OI- SOV interaction with consumers OI-MTV-SOV opportunities EXP-CS (develop brand awareness) OI- OI-EXP-NGO EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-VC Partner with key suppliers and find external solution for tech.needs OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV-PS Q13 No essential change in Better idea generation and Be faster, more flexible when Window opportunities through R&D, but better way to innovation output than in CI OI helps in realizing external partnering in development OI; CI –OI not black and find/work out seeds for OI-EXP-FIM possibilities, foster phase than is the case in CI – white, firm operates in gray innov. OI-MTV-SIV ; innov.mindset important in the type of area between CI and OI (OI-MTV-SOV) OI-EXP-FIM ;OI-MTV-EK industry; Better able with OI to innovate in business models than in CI OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI-EXP- CS 126
  • Q14 CI/R&D stays leading, More multidisciplinary Hybride model: closed and Many closed parts will exist in CI stays important on several OI only „small‟ part of working, but CI is leading in open innovation is interrelated. company, because control on parts; But hybride model is org., delivers viable business, OI just vehicle for OI will increase however: more innovation cycle is important more the case – Resarch innov. seeds to R&D new propositions open, faster, more (e.g. IP) CI-CF department proportion CI- CI-CR&D multidisciplinary and partner OI will incease – the trend is OI=50-50 ; OI not necessity, with several partners becoming more open – more but partnering will only simulaneously multidisciplinary, more increase CI-SCP partnering CI-SCP OI-MTV-ECR Q MNE MNE6 DSM MNE7 Philips MNE8 SABIC MNE9 TomTom MNE10 ABN Amro Q1 Closed R&D lab, innovation CI, tech.driven industry; funnel, hardcore research Conservative industry, Software company : scrumming. Banking industry: internal CI is about generating IP (basic technologies, technology-driven, around 60- Tech.push industry, leasing product development, from and be competitive generating IP) – gained good 70% closed research activities; market position. Open source idea to launch. money with this process. multidisciplinary teams; stage community CI-CR&D Also semi-closed, always gating mechanism/innovation been with universities funnel from idea to launch CI-TIF CI-CR&D ; CI-SCP ; CI-TIF CI-CR&D ; CI-SRS ; CI-CF CI-CR&D Q2 CI is comp.factor in B2B Right process for company, in market; Important for CI‟s importance and Good as techn.innovation Efficient for radical and which operation excellence is increasing profit. CI is dominance has decreased, as factor, incremental innovation incremental innovation; essential. Bank has to acceptable for optimzing market conditions has (development process with Comp.differentiation through safeguard revenue streams products that customer changed stage gating mechanisms often Products render safe revenue and be competitive asked for, incremental Only techn.superiority not internal/closed) streams innov. enough, marketing also CI-TIF ; CI-CF ; CI-II CI-II ; CI-SRS ; CI-CF CI-II ; CI-CF; CI-SRS important CI-II ; CI-SRS CI-IP Q3 CI is a slow process, Lack of (human) resources, 127
  • takes too long, and is CI not adequate for changed competences and facilities for Not adequate in a certain part Only traditional work inadequate for environment – is not enough new growth research. With CI of predevelopment phase of activities, no room for deviant breakthrough to excel in paradigm shift not possible to gain pre- product ideas “radical innovation”. innovation/market CI-TWP ; competitive benefits. Not Therefore, need for incubator conditions (than OI); adequate (enough) for that generate projects out of Difficult therefore to get breakthough innovation for ideas, that don‟t fit in the funding because risks are sustainability, e.g. bio-based regular banking dept. but are high. CI-IP polymers, CO2 reduction); related to the scope of a bank With CI not always possible to create value in product CI-TWP development, internal scope is not adequate, links with outside world are therefore essential CI-TWP ; CI-IP Q4 Way of operating in the Ecosystem of innovation, to Access to more resources, Leveraging intellectual capital current business world create value instruments than is the case OI means accelerating that exist within and outside internally, to benefit from the innovation the org. power of uniting forces for pre- competitive means Q5 Value chain partnering; Partnerships with external Participation in research Essential partnership in Intra-org. innovation vehicle, Offering res.facilities in partners (e.g. suppliers, institures, for pre-competitive predevelopment phase with incubator ; Innovation of open campus; Intra-org. competitors, other firms), means; Open campus for partner in the value chain, services with external partners OI in global virtual R&D open innovation campus research ends; because of interdependency in joint development context departments setting ; User-driven (social) Global virtual R&D network OI-INTER_ON (e.g. joint-ventures) OI-INTER_ON ; OI- research, e.g. HomeLab OI-INTER_ON ; OI- OI-INTER_ON ; OI- INTRA_ON OI-INTER_ON ; OI- INTRA_ON INTRA_ON CONS_CN Q6 Have a structural innovation OI important for org. Extend comp. snd resources Extend comp. and resources: Dependency of other parties in vehicle – aided by adequate dynamics – large innov. ; better speed to market by research for radical innovation value chain: extend resources in innovation budget, to budget reserved to obtain accelerating innov.projects, and problem solving; Foster. pre-development phase; generate new ideas and create external knowledge, obtaining new ideas and org. dynamics ; Obtain new Specific problem solving and radical innovation from the 128
  • tech., then also accelerate ex.knowledge ; better org. ideas for trends, product accelerate innovation projects org. point of view; Also to innovation projects and dynamics through strategic development from partners in extend org. competences and have better time-2- approach and by combining value chain OI-MTV-IDP ; OI-MTV-AIP resources in innovation market by knowing the ingredients for new projects value chain, extend innovations, being able to OI-MTV-CRI ; OI-MTV-ECR ; comp.&resources with adapt easy OI-MTV-PS ; OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-NI ; OI-MTV-SIV partners in val.chain. OI-MTV-ECR ; OI-MTV- OI-MTV-SOV OI-MTV-LIB ; OI-MTV-CRI OI-MTV-AIP ; OI- SOV ; OI-MTV-STM ; OI- OI-MTV-SOV ; OI-MTV- MTV-STM MTV-AIP ; OI-MTV-NI ; ECR OI-MTV-SOV ; OI- OI-MTV-EK MTV-ECR OI-MTV-LIB ; OI- MTV-EK OI-MTV-NT ; Q7 – n/a – Social research in HomeLab, – n/a – – n/a – – n/a – to resarch mindset of customer (research goal) Q8 Important for Q8 Q8 competitiveness, Increase competitiveness – Increase competitiveness; commercial success – e.g. access new markets and have Reduce costs and risks of pre- Proper product development, Sense of urgency to leverage reducing costs & risks in more commercial success; competitive research and find test feasibility new concepts ; intellectual capital ; New value chain for.ex.; Share costs and riskss; Value new growth opportunities and Reduce costs and risks ; growth opportunities and through new growth creation, e.g. better business increase profit-rendering Increase comp. through with this commercial success opportunities, access 2 models and develop them activities; Create added value in prioritzing for the bank; Test feasibility new markets, value faster; Sense of urgency prod.development; Sense of new ideas and concepts; Use creation by knowing the action and obtaining outside urgency through technology OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-TFNC for marketing and image value chain; Test new knowledge; Foster push and for action and value OI-EXP-RCR means and use learning points concepts and products; innov.mindset in open creation in value chain; for optimizing internal OI creates SU for proper campus; Test new concepts, Exchange knowledge and processes action; OI will foster products; Better learning and increase learning power of org. knowledge management adapting in finding the right through interaction with outside OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- and more innov.mindset; thing, how to combine things world TFNC ; OI-EXP-NGO ; OI- OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-CC EXP-MT ; OI-EXP-LP ; OI- 129
  • FIM OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-VC ; OI-EXP-LP EXP-CS OI-EXP-NGO ; OI- TFNC OI-EXP-CC ; OI-EXP-RCR EXP-VC OI-EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-SU OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP- LP OI-EXP-CS ; OI-EXP-NGO CC OI-EXP-FIM ; OI-EXP-SU OI-EXP-SU ; OI-EXP- OI-EXP-RCR RCR OI-EXP-TFNC ; OI- EXP-ANM ; OI-EXP- LP Q9 Ambitions increased as Q9 Work from strategy, Demarcate well your limits: Less space to act because of result of (commercial) structured and well what is common interest with No, exp. the same, not adjusted. lowering budget (ec. crisis) success thoughtout to function partners and what is meant for Only currently less growth effectively in OI context - business exploitation,, to bring potential as result of crisis not put everything at your back to the company supplier OI-EXP-SU OI-OBS-LPK Q10 Fear for complexity and Psychological factors: Not- Fear of leaking IP; Partner selection is non-strategic moves; invented-here syndrome ; IP issues because of peer Partners have diff. of painstaking; And sometimes People seeing demerits to Lack of practical knowledge companies doing common innovation, different priorities and focus between OI, afraid of losing job; to work efficient in OI interest research together; mindset/culture and focus; partners don‟t match; Lack of fear for leaking IP context ; Research has diff. sometimes business department Complexity to innovate in practical knowledge how to OI-OBS-CMX ; OI- focus advises not to go in OI mode conservative automotive engage in and succeed in OI OBS-CUL OI-OBS-LPK ; OI-OBS- because of IP reasons industry, also due to high PLC OI-OBS-IPI CUL OI-OBS-IPI OI-OBS-IPI ; OI-OBS-MPF OI-OBS-MPF ; OI-OBS- OI-OBS-MPF OI-OBS-CMX LPK OI-OBS-PS Q11 CI is important as CF for CI is important to find new company for incremental things out, let hardcore CI is an internal process CI through scrumming means Safeguarding operational innov. and generating IP technicians experiment, not dominated by tech.push and innovation through large excellence to protect inventions regulate everything, diversity dictated by (central) business flexibility and adaptability. is important in org. dept. CI stays important Innovating by org. strengths CI-TWP element for company and 130
  • especially in this industry: you kow what you can achieve with this process Q12 OI comp. necessity: Window opportunities ; you‟d better do it comp. necessity ; loose OI means: extend resources, Key of OI is accelerating Leveraging intellectual capital innovation funnel gain access to smartest brains, innovation in predevelopment and creating (radical) OI-EXP-SU gain broad research horizon phase innovation which doesn‟t fit through collaboration with in regular dept. and external parties. Find jointly OI-MTV-IDP ; OI-MTV-AIP increasing ec.profit by new solutions for world problems business models through the best means and instruments possible. Q13 OI creates good business CI=not-invented-here models; Have helped in syndrom With OI people gain new ideas, CI is especially adequate for OI has strengthened executive diversification of OI= a mindset, proudly become somewhat more products in B2C market; capacity of org. by leveraging company; offensive IP found elsewhere innovative; And through OI OI is especially important in internal and external ideas; OI strategy corporation advances in B2B market segment. (diff. in is constantly being done with OI-MTV-SOV research that is not possible context CI-OI) other (external) parties; OI with CI. OI mindset is doesn‟t focus on core important in org. business and market of the org.; OI incubator is diff. entity, positioned outside the banking org. Q14 CI will decrease (slightly), OI increases, all parts of org. OI will increaseOI use open innovation, it‟s a Expectation was not to replace Tech.driven company, so CI is The physical relation between important to survive in need to have (inavoidable), internal processes, that‟s a leading; the incubator and rest of org. highly comp.environment to extend innov. instruments; misconception. Closed R&D OI used only pragmatically, to is tense, as trad. work and Partnering, alliances, stays essential, even when support predevelopment of thinking patterns are reason venturing has become engaging in OI. B2B products with external for mistrust and suspicion of essential, to extend playing Collab.innovation has become parties (dependent of other entr.activities in the incubator field and opport. essential as result of changed parties in the value chain 131
  • OI-MTV-SOV environment. Because of pre- competitive research, OI will increase. CI model will decrease only qualitatively. 132