Innovation is no longer a process that is realized by one organization. Innovation is a process in which several parties jointly come to new developments. This means something: How can you be successful if you work together from organizations with different backgrounds and cultures? So what do you do as a supplier, contract manager or project manager, for example? How do you work together if speed is desired? How can you gain trust in each other and what is the effect of trust? And when do you hold your 'cards to your chest' or are you fully transparent if speed is desired in innovation? In this lecture, we show with many example cases what works and does not work when fast(er) innovation is desired with the help of outsourcing. We show what role technical and social aspects play in faster innovation. Last but not least, we also take a look behind the scenes at fast-growing organizations in the Netherlands. Speed and innovation are a permanent occupation for them. Here too, we provide insight into the role that external parties play within these fast-growing organizations.

1. Innovation is no longer a process that is realized by one organization. Innovation is a process in which
several parties jointly come to new developments. This means something. How can you be successful
if you work together from organizations with different backgrounds and cultures? So what do you do
as a supplier, contract manager or project manager, for example? How do you work together if speed
is desired? How can you gain trust in each other and what is the effect of trust? And when do you hold
your 'cards to your chest' or are you fully transparent if speed is desired in innovation?
In this lecture, we show with many example cases what works and does not work when fast(er)
innovation is desired with the help of outsourcing. We show what role technical and social aspects play
in faster innovation. Last but not least, we also take a look behind the scenes at fast-growing
organizations in the Netherlands. Speed and innovation are a permanent occupation for them. Here
too, we provide insight into the role that external parties play within these fast-growing organizations.
1
11/28/2018

2. Presenters
2
11/28/2018

3. Source: ECP year congress 2018
English translation:
“We must continue to accelerate”
"It is clear that we are doing well, but the question is: how do we maintain our strong position? We
must continue to accelerate."
With these words, Secretary of State Mona Keijzer of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate set
the tone for the ECP 2018 conference and a joint urgency.
3
11/28/2018

4. Agenda
4
11/28/2018

5. Agenda: Introduction
5
11/28/2018

6. Cost of delay: impact of time on estimated outcomes
Chrono-centrism: belief that (current) change/innovation runs faster than ever before
Innovations with market partners run faster than with science-based partners except when projects
have high level technical strength, then working with science based partners accelerates innovation
speed and working with market partners slow down innovation speed (Lopez-Vega, Du and
Vanhaverbeke, 2013)
Speed is unequal to efficiency: efficiency concerns the use of as few people and resources as possible.
Speed is about bridging a distance from beginning to end as quickly as possible.
6
11/28/2018

7. Crambling something = afraffelen
7
11/28/2018

8. Questions derived from the invitation message
8
11/28/2018

9. Sourcing
Internal sourcing: The customer organization carries out everything itself and internally.
Sourcing knowledge: The client is both problem owner and problem solver and involves external
knowledge and skills on an ad hoc basis (secondment model).
Sourcing capacity: The customer is both problem owner and problem solver and involves capacity with
one or more suppliers framework contract).
Execution of sourcing: The customer is the problem owner and together with the supplier the problem
solver. Predefined activities are carried out by the supplier under the responsibility and management
of the customer (partnership).
Sourcing the result: The customer is the problem owner and defines functionality. The supplier is a
problem solver and determines how, where and which people he delivers (performance contract).
Delivery
Outsourcing: The outsourcing of processes and/or services to an external supplier.
Insourcing: The opposite of outsourcing.
Offshoring: The outsourcing of processes and/or services performed by a company in one country to
the same or another company in another country.
Nearshoring: The outsourcing of processes and/or services to a low-wage country, geographically close
by (from the Netherlands, for example Eastern Europe).
Far shoring: The outsourcing of processes and/or services to a low-wage country, geographically far
away (from the Netherlands, for example India).
Onshore: Performing outsourced processes and/or services from the same country as the customer.
Onsite: Execution of outsourced processes and/or services from customer location.
Multi-sourcing: Outsourcing of processes and/or services to multiple specialized suppliers.
Collaborative sourcing: Dialogue and cooperation between customer and supplier determine the
(joint) result.
9
11/28/2018

10. Single sourcing: The outsourcing of processes and/or services to an (all-round) supplier.
Business process outsourcing: Outsourcing of business processes and/or services such as human
resource management and salary processing.
11/28/2018
9

11. Incremental innovations involve modest changes to existing products and services. These are
enhancements that keep a business competitive, such as new product features and service
improvements.
Breakthrough innovation refers to large technological advances that propel an existing product or
service ahead of competitors. This is often the result of research and development labs (R&D), who are
striving for the next patentable formula, device and technology.
Disruptive innovation is a term coined by Clayton Christensen. In his best-selling book The Innovator’s
Dilemma he shows that disruptive innovations “result is worse product performance, at least in the
near-term. [They] bring to a market a very different value proposition than had been available
previously” (p. xviii).
Game-changing innovation transform markets and even society. These innovations have a radical
impact on how humans act, think and feel in some way.
10
11/28/2018

12. Agenda: Introduction
Speed is expressed as an aspect of time performance
11
11/28/2018

13. Definition of the variable time (Time performance)
1. Speed (m
2
/time) (Bennett et al., 1996; Konchar & Sanvido, 1998).
-Construction speed = [(net floor space/end date construction phase – start date construction
phase)/30] in (m2/month)
-Delivery speed = net floor space / (total actual project time/30) in (m2/month)
2. Time efficiency (Vasters et al., 2009).
-Time efficiency = standard project time / total actual project time
3. Project time (Bennett et al., 1996; Hale et al., 2009; Konchar & Sanvido, 1998).
-Total actual project time = date of project completion – date of the first contract action
4. Time schedule versus real project time (Bennett et al., 1996; Hale et al., 2009; Ibbs et al., 2003;
Konchar & Sanvido, 1998).
-Change in total schedule (%) = [(total actual project time – total as- planned project time) / total as-
planned project time] * 100
-Change in design schedule (%) = [(total design time – total as- planned design time) / total as- planned
design time] * 100
-Change in construction schedule (%) = [(total construction time – total as planned construction time) /
total as- planned construction time] * 100
12
11/28/2018

14. Standstill refers to weekend days when people are spending their private time. The number of days is
calculated by total elapsed days / 7.
Stagnation refers to standstill during working days and indicates issues in the project that hinder
movement.
13
11/28/2018

15. Agenda: Speed of (outsourcing) projects
14
11/28/2018

16. Agenda: Research results
15
11/28/2018

17. Insights are collected during research and studies from 1999 to 2018 and many collaborations with
private and educational institutions
16
11/28/2018

18. Based on IBAFrame study (2008 – 2018)
The main principles one and two are at the organizational level while the main principles three and
four are at the team/group level. Attitude and competences are key principles connected to the
individual. The figure shows very clearly the relationship between the way (level) of steering and the
achieved result (change result). This figure is a solid foundation for the findings that the way of
managing has a great influence on the result of organizational change in which IT plays an important
role. Especially the principles of one common goal, an appropriate approach to change and
involvement and cooperation are apparently difficult to achieve. It is also striking that attitude is
apparently experienced as not being problematic. Even in less performing situations, this main
principle scores relatively well.
A score 10 means fully agree while a score 1 means completely disagree. A value of 5.5 is in the middle
and means neutral.
17
11/28/2018

19. Basic idea is that the execution of an IT-project varies depending on the complexity of the execution
and impact of the outcome.
1. Far from certainty and far from agreement
The impact of the result is uncertain (or not desired) and the approach is perceived is highly complex
(or not agreed). Projects is this area are very difficult to control and have a low success rate. Increasing
speed for these situations is harmful rather than useful.
2. Far from certainty and close to agreement
The impact of the result is uncertain but the approach for execution is agreed. This may occur in crisis
or difficult situations where inaction is impossible (e.g. in the event of impending bankruptcy).
3. Close to certainty and far from agreement
This situation appears when impact of the outcome is clear (certain) but not desired by all parties or
stakeholders. Execution evolves in complex (and careful) handling and introduces political acting.
Increasing or steering on speed is useless.
4. Close to certainty and close to agreement
Outcome is clear and accepted and the approach for execution is preferred (accepted). Speed leads to
success in much predictable contexts (Chen, Reilly, Lynn, 2012) which applies for this area.
The linear positioning of the population projects is based on the following 3 questions:
- Is the result an improvement?
- Is the impact sufficiently investigated?
- Is the complexity sufficiently investigated?
18
11/28/2018

20. The randomly collected answers are perceptions of those involved and are expressed in value 1 (no), 4
(sometimes), 7 (usually) and 10 (yes). The number of projects is the first number in the white arrow. By
the way, the number is the number of successfully experienced projects. This is when the perceived
result is 7 or higher. per area the success ratio is calculated (number of successful projects divided by
total number of projects per area).
11/28/2018
18

21. For explanation see previous slide.
The above positioning includes only outsourcing projects. Evaluations are based on the early
implementation stadium, the beginning of the contract. Compared to the other projects in the
previous slide, an important finding is that relatively speaking, more outsourcing projects are located
in the problematic areas of far from certainty/agreement.
19
11/28/2018

22. Agenda: Case studies
20
11/28/2018

23. Case properties:
It concerns business process outsourcing of human resource activities including IT.
-The case can be typed as incremental innovation (see slide 10)
-Sourcing option was: sourcing result (see slide 9)
-Intention was collaborative sourcing (see slide 9)
Of the good intentions came little to fruition. Key figures were constantly in conflict mode already in
the beginning of the project. Temporary suspension and replacement of key figures was necessary to
speed up progress.
21
11/28/2018

24. Case properties:
It concerns development and delivery of an interactive TV-solution.
-The case can be typed as incremental innovation (see slide 10)
-Sourcing option was: sourcing result (see slide 9)
-Intention was collaborative sourcing (see slide 9)
Case 2 is positioned or typed as close to certainty/agreement. As well as supplier as client were (very)
satisfied about the outcome. A detailed publication can be found in:
https://www.hmr.nl/archief/exponentiele-projecten
Also the control intensity at speed is addressed for location, relation, activity and time:
https://www.blogit.nl/bestuurlijke-intensiteit-projecten/
22
11/28/2018

25. A previous investigation revealed some undesired side effects of speed:
https://www.slideshare.net/ldohmen/new-governance-and-the-secret-of-speed-20150422-slideshare
Apart from limited incompleteness, in the first weeks after connecting the first customers also a
number of uncovered errors were detected which had to be corrected with a technical update of the
TV-product.
23
11/28/2018

26. Case properties:
-The cases can be typed as incremental innovation (see slide 10)
-Sourcing option was: sourcing result (see slide 9)
-Intention was collaborative sourcing (see slide 9)
English translation of listed issues:
* Needs node
- Customer: Project management lacks a single point of contact, customer standards for project
management are not sufficiently observed; Business plans are insufficiently clear, too many ad hoc
questions; Lack of innovative power at supplier;
- Supplier: Requirements are not complete, too many unclear factors; Communication towards
customer and management of expectations must be improved; Too little time to deal with non-
standard or ad hoc questions.
* Transition node
- Customer: Clarity and communication regarding transfer to management is insufficient; Quality from
transfer to management is insufficient.
- Supplier: No dominant bottleneck reported upon transfer.
* Purchasing node
- Customer: Knowledge is too little disseminated, dependence on a limited number of experts is too
great;
- Supplier: There is a lack of resources and a lack of time; The contract is not well attuned to the
customer's wishes; It is unclear who is the primary customer contact point.
* Service integration node:
- Customer: Service integration by supplier is not performed proactively enough; The supplier is not
flexible enough and proactive enough; Technical integration is insufficient.
- Supplier: Customer mandate is missing to be able to do proactive service integration.
24
11/28/2018

27. * Service node
- Customer: Processes are too rigid, too many steps in the supply chain.
- Supplier: Too much emphasis on cost savings.
11/28/2018
24

28. Agenda: Lessons learned
25
11/28/2018

29. Previous questions from the introduction.
Answers can be found in and depend on the degree of certainty and agreement (see slides 18 and 19).
Most outsourcing projects are in the situation of chaos and complicated. In order to get out of this, it is
important to investigate the patterns that cause this. Insights can be used to convene and intervene so
the project can move to the areas of complexity based on judgmental/political decision making which
will increase the (expected) success ratio. For political decision making coalition building, negotiations,
and finding compromises are necessary to set the projects direction. For judgmental decision making a
strong sense of shared mission or vision may be helpful. To move further to the area of speed
agreement and certainty are needed. Concepts like holacracy are helpful in these areas. Holacracy is a
new way of setting up and managing projects. This is based on decentralizing control and there is no
hierarchy, which is the case with most project management methods. Each (key) professional fulfils his
own unique roles within the borders of one or more subprojects. Everyone is 'manager' of has his own
roles and is responsible for its functioning (Ismail and others, 2014).
Answers are derived from: http://adaptknowledge.com/wp-
content/uploads/rapidintake/PI_CL/media/Stacey_Matrix.pdf
26
11/28/2018

30. This presentation and research shows that problematic situations are caused by involved key players
and stakeholders. Hassle and crisis in (project) teams! Who didn't have to deal with it? Lack of
understanding between people hinders smooth cooperation and smooth knowledge transfer.
Research shows that this has a major negative influence on the project result. It is not easy for project
leaders and clients to 'get their finger on it'. This is often because they are part of the problem. The
social design proposition for (project) teams detects problematic relationships, projects the current
situation on a roadmap and offers insights to intervene in projects that are on the wrong path. This
substantially increases the success rate of projects.
27
11/28/2018

31. Part of Clemens van den Broek
28
11/28/2018

32. Source: Organization for economic cooperation and development
Other sources report that only 1 of 400 organizations becomes a fast-growing (gazelle) company:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2016/40/1-op-400-startende-bedrijven-wordt-gazelle
11/28/2018
29

33. Research method
11/28/2018
30

34. Source Entrecomp:
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC101581/lfna27939enn.pdf
11/28/2018
31

35. A couple of organizational properties of fast-growing companies.
In June 2014 Ricardo Semler made a firm statement: "Large companies are doomed to death. They are
losing the ability to change, to adapt to a new age"[i] He cited Polaroid as an example. These kinds of
statements contribute to the perception that in the current era of digital transformation, more large
than small enterprises seem to go under. But is this image also in line with reality?
More details available on: De veerkracht van grote organisaties on ManagementSite (only in Dutch
language)
https://www.managementsite.nl/veerkracht-grote-organisaties-1
https://www.managementsite.nl/veerkracht-veranderkracht-grote-organisaties
[i] https://www.sprout.nl/artikel/ricardo-semler/grote-bedrijven-zijn-ten-dode-opgeschreven
11/28/2018
32

36. Properties of the entrepreneur (and leader) of a fast-growing company
11/28/2018
33

37. Disruption is in the genes of fast-growing companies
11/28/2018
34

38. A distinction and ordering of values for a fast-growing company
11/28/2018
35

39. When we compare the interpretations from the interviews with the competences of 'non-gazelles'
companies - data from 'non-gazelles' companies are collected via questionnaires - 6 competences
stand out that the 'gazelles' companies excel in. These are indicated by a red dot in the above showed
figure:
- Continuously working on ideas and possibilities for improvements (1.2 Creativity);
- Assess and decide on promising ideas and opportunities (1.4 Translating ideas into value);
- Focus (specialization) and do not give up (2.2 Motivation and persistence);
- Homogeneous and performance-oriented culture (2.5 Mobilizing others);
- Despite doubts and uncertainty, belief in the company and entrepreneurship (3.3 Can cope with
uncertainty, ambiguity and risks);
- You learn to do business by doing it (3.5 Learning by experience).
Reducing the whole picture to a narrative level, we can say that entrepreneurs of 'gazelles' companies
are people who see opportunities. They are open to something new, then they make a calculation on
the back of a cigar box like the old builder or constructor. They appreciate the idea and place their risk
assessment next to it like a second nature. Their conclusion is in the form of: “we will take action” or:
“I do not see any point in this”. In this second process of nature it is accepted that mistakes are made
and that this can lead to losses.
11/28/2018
36

40. Relevance of entrepreneurship competences
11/28/2018
37

41. Some striking statements of the interviewed persons
11/28/2018
38

42. In case of questions and/or remarks feel free to contact via LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/leon-dohmen-092b24/
11/28/2018
39

43. Thank you for reading and taking notice of this research!
All rights reserved
No rights can be derived from the content.
11/28/2018
40