IS HEC open innovation


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IS HEC open innovation

  1. 1. Innovation ouverte et sociale: utiliser l’intelligence collective Theory1. The theory2. The tools X3. The strategy Impleme Learning @osimod #is11osimo
  2. 2. Key concepts
  3. 3. The context• Complex, rapidly changing world• Impossible to keep up with innovation• "There are always more smart people outside your company than within it.” Bill Joy
  4. 4. DELL• Launched in February 2007 Dell IdeaStorm is a pioneer project in the use of idea platforms in open/customer inspired innovation with more than 10.000 ideas posted.
  5. 5. Values, not only tools 7
  6. 6. What is new?• From one-to-many to many-to-many• From one-off exercise to continuous engagement• From institution-led to individual-led• From expensive to cheap• From planned to emergent
  7. 7. What is new Traditional innovation Open innovationMission Enable pre-defined groups/teams working Enable individuals to act in loose, ad-hoc closely together and/or relatively formal collaborations with a potentially very large collaborative relationships. number of others.Relationship to Tools reflect the organizational hierarch Little link to organizational hierarchyorganisational hierarchy and roles within them.Control of structure Centrally imposed and generally rigid Emergent (=emerges and evolves) controlsContent originated by Specialists with authorisation All users - also emergentControl over users Users/participants are fixed and their roles Roles by choice and can evolve over time pre-defined. (emergent)Control mechanisms Formal, rules Norms, examplesChange of content Slow RapidtimescalesDelivery model Typically on premise commercially Range of delivery models including on premise, licensed software cloud, commercial, open source, stand-alone, suites or add-ins to E1.0 systemsRange of participants Colleagues with similar or complementary Anyone in the organization and potentially job roles outside (e.g. customers)Links between Peer or hierarchical Links can be strong to non-existent (orparticipants potential) within the groupTypical tools Knowledge management, knowledge Blogs, wikis, social networking, prediction repositories, decision automation marketsCommunication patterns One-to-one Many-to-many 9
  8. 8. WHY: the benefits• Increase ideation rate• Reaching out to new innovators• Leveraging internal innovators• Wider variety of disciplines – thinking outside of the box• Buzz , creativity and excitement• Shorter time-to-market
  9. 9.• 5000 Euros prize• 1 month• 63 prototypes/concepts received
  10. 10. The dark side• Lack of participation• Spam and improper content• Additional workload• Information overload
  11. 11. The dark side No expectations, Design well, leverage• Lack of participation effect(vanity, self-interest)• Spam and improper content Monitor daily, critical mass, self- regulated• Additional workload Link into workstream• Information overload User-driven filtering
  12. 12. Different targets How to collaborate? Internal Proximity Other Sharepoint dept. Lead Users Collaborative tools General Communication (social public media) And email….
  13. 13. What unique insight users have• IT skills: coders and hackers are, generally speaking, better and faster thanorganisations at creating applications.• specific thematic knowledge: Wikipedia teaches us that everyone has something (s)he’s expert on. Peertopatent exploits the technological knowledge on things such as parallel simulation• experience as users of public services: it is costly and difficult for government to understand the perspective of users. Open feedback channels such as PatientOpinion highlight problems that government would not think about , such as toilets being too low• pervasive geographic coverage: citizens obviously have a more pervasive coverage of the territory thanorganisation• trust: customers trust friends and experts more thanorganisation. Mums trust other mums better thanorganisation• many eyes and many hands: customers are more
  14. 14. PeerToPatent
  15. 15. 4 progressive steps Avoid technical hiccups: number of complaints; degree of innovation (from mature to world first implementation) Ensure takeup: number of users, number of contributions, number of contributors No spam: number of spam comments Ensure high quality content: % of contributions judged as useful; % of new contributors (previously not engaged)Source:
  16. 16. Incentives to participation• Recognition• Meaning• Money
  17. 17. INCA awards
  18. 18. Principles• Design thinking• Power of pull• Many to many• Serendipity• Positive sum games• Act as a platform• Power of networks
  19. 19. The design thinking process• Create a core group• Large scale brainstorm• Collaboratively draft a first version• Open up for comments• Create final beta• Go public
  20. 20. Impact : a power law
  21. 21. Use casesUse case ExamplesProject collaboration A&O community sites, BlueKiwi at USEO, MindTouch at Planet 9Awareness Microblogging at Westaflex, Onenote at PfizerInduction and training of aRway use of E20, blogging at A&O as corporateemployees memory in view of employee high turnoverCommunities A&O, Westaflex community buildingEmployee engagement KPN internal HR blog, WestapediaExpertise location KPN blog, LR wiki for expertise locationInnovation mgmt Westaflex, Rite-Solutions prediction market. USEO open community around products. aRway develops innovation with partnersRecruitment Blog about working life at A&O Most implementations are internal to the company only. Secondly, with key partners/consultant Thirdly, with customers and general public 23
  22. 22. BenefitsType ExampleAgile organisation Better awareness of dispersed teams (aRway, Westaflex, A&O), deal with employee turnover (A&O, Westaflex), access to expertise (Pfizer, A&O), facilitating unplanned innovation (USEO, Pfizer)Innovation culture Multiplying innovation rate (A&O, Intuit), fostering cross-discipline collaboration (Pfizer), employee and customer involvement in innovation (A%O)Cross-org collaboration Better collaboration between colleagues and with partners, better access to subject expertsEmployee satisfaction More open dialogue with employees (KPN)Customer satisfaction Better coordination with customer needs (Westaflex, aRway)Revenue generation New customers and products (USEO)Cost savings Reduction in email and in travel (Westaflex, Pfizer) 24
  23. 23. P&G
  24. 24. EXERCISEDesign an open innovation initiative• What is the problem• How to open it up• Who to engage• How to generate participation
  25. 25. TOOLS Tools
  26. 26. Ideastorms• Uservoice• Ideascale• GetSatisfaction• Google Moderator
  27. 27. Q&A• Quora• Linkedin answers• Yahoo answers
  28. 28. OI Platforms• OpenIdeo (50K)• Innocentive•• 100open• Zooppa• Innovation Jam (200K)
  29. 29. Social media• Blog• Twitter• Commentable documents
  30. 30. EXERCISE• Create your own platform• Choose one tool• Implement it
  31. 31. Strategy
  32. 32. Approach• nota mandatory and highly structured plan for action. Successful engagement requires continuous tweaking and adaptation.• a flexible framework for action, which should:- set out the overall goals- ensure coherence between the different initiatives- spell out the key principles, values and criteria for decision- offer a ressource toolbox of different solutions that can be applied in different contexts
  33. 33. Example: Stakeholders engagement strategyGoals• Dissemination beyond the usual suspects• get new ideas and out of the box thinking.• encourage concrete innovation, not only ideas• enable better knowledge management
  34. 34. How: principles• To maintain an open, “many-to-many” approach where stakeholders input is visible and commentable by all.• - To focus not be on one-off events, but on daily policy-making activities and choose the most appropriate tools for evaluating, designing and implementing policies.• - To clarify the rules of the game: the impact of engagement should be clear from the outset. Provide clear guidelines about what is acceptable and not, what is under discussion and not.• - To invest time in online engagement. It not a way for having stakeholders do the work of the EC.• - To make the content as clear, accessible and usable by stakeholders in order to remove barriers to participation. One cannot expect stakeholders to participate; appropriate incentives have to be identified; and their contribution should be made visible• - Close the circle of engagement by reporting BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY about the output.• - To engage stakeholders where they already engage, such as social networks and online communities, and federated content to the DAA website.• - To embrace online engagement in the long run: participation does not happen immediately but requires time to build trust.• - To adopt online engagement as the default option in their work, and allow a closed approach by exception which has to be justified.
  35. 35. How: tools• Ad hoc external platforms• accepting several forms of identification, not forcing users to register• embeddable in the Europa website• Multilingual• be populated by relevant audiences, where discussion is already happening• preferably European or with servers based in Europe,• allowing for data portability
  36. 36. Key indicators
  37. 37. EXERCISE• Design your own open innovation strategy• Context and goals• Principles and tools• Key people to involve• Indicators and targets
  38. 38. Thank you!•• @osimod•