This was the deck that I used to present at the UKBI 2011 conference @ the Hilton in Manchester UK.
As the slides seemed popular I thought that I'd better load them!
They are very graphic intensive and low in narrative/text - as is my style - so if you really are interested in understanding the content you could tweet me @brianamc
12. “I’d like to take all of our geology, all the data we have that goes
back to 1948, and put it into a file and share it with the world,”
13.
14. Over 80 percent of the new targets yielded substantial quantities of
gold. 8 million ounces of gold found. Shaved two to three years off
exploration time.
23. Procter & Gamble
Harvard Business Review article authored by two P&G
executives, the companyʼs innovation success rate has more
than doubled while the cost of innovation has fallen
24. Towards Services...
Actual Forecast
100
Shift towards Services in the US since 1800
75 Agriculture
Per cent-age
Goods
50
Services
25
Year Source: J Spoher, Haas School of Business (via H Chesbrough)
0
1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2010 2050
services goods agriculture
25. Innovation Platform
or Burning Platform...
Nokia’s CEO’s wake-up call to his firm’s “burning platform” - resulting from a failure to keep-up with innovation in the mobile space – is a timely reminder of how ‘platforms’ themselves are the
key to staying ahead of the game.
Maybe the new Microsoft tie-up will turn things round – maybe it won’t. But this short video of Henry Chesbrough is a neat summary of how innovation changed while Nokia wasn't looking.
It seems increasingly that key to building such innovation platforms - as with Google Android, now the largest mobile platform, and the Apple iPhone operating system - has been openness to
co-creation, and user-innovation. This not only applies to innovation strategy in the software space but, increasingly, in the product space, as articles in the New York Times and The
Economist have recently addressed. Summary: there appears to be a real price to be paid for a lack of openness in both product and software innovation.
26. Innovation Platform
or Burning Platform...
"Our competitors aren't taking our market
share with devices; they are taking our
market share with an entire ecosystem...
Nokia’s CEO’s wake-up call to his firm’s “burning platform” - resulting from a failure to keep-up with innovation in the mobile space – is a timely reminder of how ‘platforms’ themselves are the
key to staying ahead of the game.
Maybe the new Microsoft tie-up will turn things round – maybe it won’t. But this short video of Henry Chesbrough is a neat summary of how innovation changed while Nokia wasn't looking.
We're not collaborating internally... Nokia,
It seems increasingly that key to building such innovation platforms - as with Google Android, now the largest mobile platform, and the Apple iPhone operating system - has been openness to
co-creation, and user-innovation. This not only applies to innovation strategy in the software space but, increasingly, in the product space, as articles in the New York Times and The
Economist have recently addressed. Summary: there appears to be a real price to be paid for a lack of openness in both product and software innovation.
our platform is burning."
Nokia CEO Stephen Elop
27. Innovation Platform
or Burning Platform...
Nokia’s CEO’s wake-up call to his firm’s “burning platform” - resulting from a failure to keep-up with innovation in the mobile space – is a timely reminder of how ‘platforms’ themselves are the
key to staying ahead of the game.
Maybe the new Microsoft tie-up will turn things round – maybe it won’t. But this short video of Henry Chesbrough is a neat summary of how innovation changed while Nokia wasn't looking.
It seems increasingly that key to building such innovation platforms - as with Google Android, now the largest mobile platform, and the Apple iPhone operating system - has been openness to
co-creation, and user-innovation. This not only applies to innovation strategy in the software space but, increasingly, in the product space, as articles in the New York Times and The
Economist have recently addressed. Summary: there appears to be a real price to be paid for a lack of openness in both product and software innovation.
28. Innovation Platform
or Burning Platform...
Nokia’s CEO’s wake-up call to his firm’s “burning platform” - resulting from a failure to keep-up with innovation in the mobile space – is a timely reminder of how ‘platforms’ themselves are the
key to staying ahead of the game.
Maybe the new Microsoft tie-up will turn things round – maybe it won’t. But this short video of Henry Chesbrough is a neat summary of how innovation changed while Nokia wasn't looking.
It seems increasingly that key to building such innovation platforms - as with Google Android, now the largest mobile platform, and the Apple iPhone operating system - has been openness to
co-creation, and user-innovation. This not only applies to innovation strategy in the software space but, increasingly, in the product space, as articles in the New York Times and The
Economist have recently addressed. Summary: there appears to be a real price to be paid for a lack of openness in both product and software innovation.
“Whenever we see a business plan for a new
device, we immediately ask. OK, where’s the
services associated with that device”
29. So how does this allow us to increase
‘Impact’ & improve IP transfer...
43. The digital age has ushered new
ways to filter information...
Crowds, with cognitive diversity & multiple perspectives,
in aggregate provide stronger raw intelligence of any single person
44. Project selection through the:
Wisdom of the Crowd
Improves decision making, removes a
constraint, increases transparency...
50. Pinch-point
You can’t do it all alone...
KT used to be about
assembling and employing
the most able team
51. Pinch-point
You can’t do it all alone...
KT used to be about KT 2.0 is all about
assembling and employing assembling & connecting
the most able team the right network
54. Proposition 1
You can’t do it all alone...
KT 2.0 is about
assembling the right
network…
Can’t employ all
the smart people...
55. Proposition 1
You can’t do it all alone...
KT 2.0 is about
assembling the right
network…
Can’t employ all
the smart people...
Don’t want to
employ them...
56. Proposition 1
You can’t do it all alone...
KT 2.0 is about
assembling the right
network…
Can’t employ all
the smart people...
Don’t want to
employ them...
Can give ‘skin’ to
Particularly to plan non-emloyees...
and develop a
complex business
proposition
59. We can’t wait for the lightning strike
Externals more credible
Project selection via
externals better
KT was solely focused on the
large VC deal and avoidance of
the ‘low-value’ deal
60. We can’t wait for the lightning strike
KT2.0 understands that
alternative funding/exit
strategies will become an
important part of the mix
Externals more credible
Project selection via
externals better
KT was solely focused on the
large VC deal and avoidance of
the ‘low-value’ deal
61. We can’t wait for the lightning strike
KT2.0 understands that
alternative funding/exit
strategies will become an
important part of the mix
Externals more credible
Project selection via
externals better
KT was solely focused on the
large VC deal and avoidance of
the ‘low-value’ deal
77. Green Chemical Dyeing Technology
...by VC because took a year to review
FILTER FAILURE
78. Green Chemical Dyeing Technology
...by VC because took a year to review
FILTER FAILURE
& University didn’t have connections to market
79. Green Chemical Dyeing Technology
...by VC because took a year to review
FILTER FAILURE
& University didn’t have connections to market
FAILURE TO COLLABORATE
80. Green Chemical Dyeing Technology
...by VC because took a year to review
FILTER FAILURE
& University didn’t have connections to market
FAILURE TO COLLABORATE
94. Filling without Drilling
Because VC sat on it since 2003
FILTER FAILURE
University failed to progress
95. Filling without Drilling
Because VC sat on it since 2003
FILTER FAILURE
University failed to progress
LACK OF INTERNAL BIZ DEV. CAPABILITY
96. Filling without Drilling
Because VC sat on it since 2003
FILTER FAILURE
University failed to progress
LACK OF INTERNAL BIZ DEV. CAPABILITY
Spun out - Oversubscribed
First investment round of £1.5m
97. Filling without Drilling
Because VC sat on it since 2003
FILTER FAILURE
University failed to progress
LACK OF INTERNAL BIZ DEV. CAPABILITY
Spun out - Oversubscribed
First investment round of £1.5m
98. Ten-fold Income Increase...
1000000
ere!
750000
rts h
Licence Income
a
nt st
500000
rime
250000 Expe
0
2004/5 2005/6 2006/07 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 20011/12
99. Ten-fold Income Increase...
1000000
ere!
750000
rts h
Licence Income
a
nt st
500000
rime
250000 Expe
0
2004/5 2005/6 2006/07 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 20011/12
With reduced cost base...
100. A New Game - New Rules...
Knowledge
Transfer 2.0
Getting more from less
105. Openness Accelerates Innovation
& improves selection
Collaboration Provides Scalability
& Reduces risk
Building a Platform is Critical to
Facilitating this
106. ... and to speed and scale ‘Impact’
and IP flow!
\nNot only corporates that can benefit from the Innovation Division of Labour\nUniversities (and KTs not fully exploiting this yet!! LINK to project focus!!\n
He wound up at an MIT conference for young pres- idents when coincidentally the subject of Linux came up. Perched in the lec- ture hall, McEwen listened intently to the remarkable story of how Linus Torvalds and a loose volunteer brigade of software developers had assembled the world-class computer operating system over the Internet. The lecturer explained how Torvalds revealed his code to the world, allowing thousands of anonymous programmers to vet it and make contributions of their own.\nMcEwen had an epiphany and sat back in his chair to contemplate. If Goldcorp employees couldn’t find the Red Lake gold, maybe someone else could. And maybe the key to finding those people was to open up the ex- ploration process in the same way Torvalds “open sourced” Linux.\nMcEwen raced back to Toronto to present the idea to his head geolo- gist. “I’d like to take all of our geology, all the data we have that goes back to 1948, and put it into a file and share it with the world,” he said. “Then we’ll ask the world to tell us where we’re going to find the next six million ounces of gold.” McEwen saw this as an opportunity to harness some of the best minds in the industry. Perhaps understandably, the in-house geol- ogists were just a little skeptical.\nMining is an intensely secretive industry, and apart from the minerals themselves, geological data is the most precious and carefully guarded re- source. It’s like the Cadbury secret—it’s just not something companies go around sharing. Goldcorp employees wondered whether the global com- munity of geologists would respond to Goldcorp’s call in the same way that software developers rallied around Linus Torvalds. Moreover, they worried about how the contest would reflect on them and their inability to find the illusive gold deposits.\nMcEwen acknowledges in retrospect that the strategy was controversial and risky.\n\nThe contestants had identified 110 targets on the Red Lake property, 50 percent of which had not been previously identified by the company. Over 80 percent of the new targets yielded substantial quantities of gold. In fact, since the challenge was initiated an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found. McEwen estimates the collaborative process shaved two to three years off their exploration time.\n\nBut with 55,000 acres, nobody at Goldcorp could figure out where to look for the buried treasure. To avert a wild goose chase, McEwan shared on the Web Goldcorp's geological data going back to 1948 and offered $575,000 in prizes to those who could come up with the best way to find and extract the gold.\nParticipants in the contest found 55 drilling targets Goldcorp had not identified. Eighty percent hit pay dirt. "In fact, since the challenge was initiated, an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found" and in four years Goldcorp's cost of production dropped 600%.\n\n
He wound up at an MIT conference for young pres- idents when coincidentally the subject of Linux came up. Perched in the lec- ture hall, McEwen listened intently to the remarkable story of how Linus Torvalds and a loose volunteer brigade of software developers had assembled the world-class computer operating system over the Internet. The lecturer explained how Torvalds revealed his code to the world, allowing thousands of anonymous programmers to vet it and make contributions of their own.\nMcEwen had an epiphany and sat back in his chair to contemplate. If Goldcorp employees couldn’t find the Red Lake gold, maybe someone else could. And maybe the key to finding those people was to open up the ex- ploration process in the same way Torvalds “open sourced” Linux.\nMcEwen raced back to Toronto to present the idea to his head geolo- gist. “I’d like to take all of our geology, all the data we have that goes back to 1948, and put it into a file and share it with the world,” he said. “Then we’ll ask the world to tell us where we’re going to find the next six million ounces of gold.” McEwen saw this as an opportunity to harness some of the best minds in the industry. Perhaps understandably, the in-house geol- ogists were just a little skeptical.\nMining is an intensely secretive industry, and apart from the minerals themselves, geological data is the most precious and carefully guarded re- source. It’s like the Cadbury secret—it’s just not something companies go around sharing. Goldcorp employees wondered whether the global com- munity of geologists would respond to Goldcorp’s call in the same way that software developers rallied around Linus Torvalds. Moreover, they worried about how the contest would reflect on them and their inability to find the illusive gold deposits.\nMcEwen acknowledges in retrospect that the strategy was controversial and risky.\n\nThe contestants had identified 110 targets on the Red Lake property, 50 percent of which had not been previously identified by the company. Over 80 percent of the new targets yielded substantial quantities of gold. In fact, since the challenge was initiated an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found. McEwen estimates the collaborative process shaved two to three years off their exploration time.\n\nBut with 55,000 acres, nobody at Goldcorp could figure out where to look for the buried treasure. To avert a wild goose chase, McEwan shared on the Web Goldcorp's geological data going back to 1948 and offered $575,000 in prizes to those who could come up with the best way to find and extract the gold.\nParticipants in the contest found 55 drilling targets Goldcorp had not identified. Eighty percent hit pay dirt. "In fact, since the challenge was initiated, an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found" and in four years Goldcorp's cost of production dropped 600%.\n\n
He wound up at an MIT conference for young pres- idents when coincidentally the subject of Linux came up. Perched in the lec- ture hall, McEwen listened intently to the remarkable story of how Linus Torvalds and a loose volunteer brigade of software developers had assembled the world-class computer operating system over the Internet. The lecturer explained how Torvalds revealed his code to the world, allowing thousands of anonymous programmers to vet it and make contributions of their own.\nMcEwen had an epiphany and sat back in his chair to contemplate. If Goldcorp employees couldn’t find the Red Lake gold, maybe someone else could. And maybe the key to finding those people was to open up the ex- ploration process in the same way Torvalds “open sourced” Linux.\nMcEwen raced back to Toronto to present the idea to his head geolo- gist. “I’d like to take all of our geology, all the data we have that goes back to 1948, and put it into a file and share it with the world,” he said. “Then we’ll ask the world to tell us where we’re going to find the next six million ounces of gold.” McEwen saw this as an opportunity to harness some of the best minds in the industry. Perhaps understandably, the in-house geol- ogists were just a little skeptical.\nMining is an intensely secretive industry, and apart from the minerals themselves, geological data is the most precious and carefully guarded re- source. It’s like the Cadbury secret—it’s just not something companies go around sharing. Goldcorp employees wondered whether the global com- munity of geologists would respond to Goldcorp’s call in the same way that software developers rallied around Linus Torvalds. Moreover, they worried about how the contest would reflect on them and their inability to find the illusive gold deposits.\nMcEwen acknowledges in retrospect that the strategy was controversial and risky.\n\nThe contestants had identified 110 targets on the Red Lake property, 50 percent of which had not been previously identified by the company. Over 80 percent of the new targets yielded substantial quantities of gold. In fact, since the challenge was initiated an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found. McEwen estimates the collaborative process shaved two to three years off their exploration time.\n\nBut with 55,000 acres, nobody at Goldcorp could figure out where to look for the buried treasure. To avert a wild goose chase, McEwan shared on the Web Goldcorp's geological data going back to 1948 and offered $575,000 in prizes to those who could come up with the best way to find and extract the gold.\nParticipants in the contest found 55 drilling targets Goldcorp had not identified. Eighty percent hit pay dirt. "In fact, since the challenge was initiated, an astounding eight million ounces of gold have been found" and in four years Goldcorp's cost of production dropped 600%.\n\n
\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
SEE http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=413162\n\nAND\n\nhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2010/aug/04/gameculture-crowdsourcing\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\nAt least for first filter for ideas. Distribute the workload!\nWith a small team evaluating all ideas, the workload can be large. Change that equation. With a large number of participants evaluating a small number of ideas, the work of identifying the most promising ideas is significantly easier, and better.\nThe great thing here is that people will self-select to provide feedback. They naturally weigh in on what interests them.\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Can EMPLOY them all:\n\nnot matter how big you are you will not have the skill set to cover 4-6K researchers...\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have the industrial or sector links you need\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have \n\nWANT to employ them ...\ncoming reduction in public funding ... \nimpact \n\nLinks to the abilityt to give some skin in the game...\n\nInstitutions need people to organise peopel \nthey take on goals other thatn orgingal goals\n\n
Can EMPLOY them all:\n\nnot matter how big you are you will not have the skill set to cover 4-6K researchers...\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have the industrial or sector links you need\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have \n\nWANT to employ them ...\ncoming reduction in public funding ... \nimpact \n\nLinks to the abilityt to give some skin in the game...\n\nInstitutions need people to organise peopel \nthey take on goals other thatn orgingal goals\n\n
Can EMPLOY them all:\n\nnot matter how big you are you will not have the skill set to cover 4-6K researchers...\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have the industrial or sector links you need\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have \n\nWANT to employ them ...\ncoming reduction in public funding ... \nimpact \n\nLinks to the abilityt to give some skin in the game...\n\nInstitutions need people to organise peopel \nthey take on goals other thatn orgingal goals\n\n
Can EMPLOY them all:\n\nnot matter how big you are you will not have the skill set to cover 4-6K researchers...\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have the industrial or sector links you need\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have \n\nWANT to employ them ...\ncoming reduction in public funding ... \nimpact \n\nLinks to the abilityt to give some skin in the game...\n\nInstitutions need people to organise peopel \nthey take on goals other thatn orgingal goals\n\n
Can EMPLOY them all:\n\nnot matter how big you are you will not have the skill set to cover 4-6K researchers...\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have the industrial or sector links you need\n\nNo matter how big you are you will not have \n\nWANT to employ them ...\ncoming reduction in public funding ... \nimpact \n\nLinks to the abilityt to give some skin in the game...\n\nInstitutions need people to organise peopel \nthey take on goals other thatn orgingal goals\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
At very least, other forms of financing - angel investing, bootstrapping, or using public grants - will become all the more crucial to the financing of early ventures. Or some more complex mix of all. Studies show that Angel funds in the US are not far below traditional venture capital.\n\n
At very least, other forms of financing - angel investing, bootstrapping, or using public grants - will become all the more crucial to the financing of early ventures. Or some more complex mix of all. Studies show that Angel funds in the US are not far below traditional venture capital.\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n
External had:\nproduct dev and regulatory expertise\nNew the dental market\nHad access to investor networks\n