Open innovation 2 0

Open Innovation 2.0Open Innovation 2.0

The evaluation of the first implementation

of Open Innovation 2.0

Jeroen Klijs – www.chainsmanagers.com 11/15/2013 1

Assignment:Assignment:

Design a valorisation Design a valorisation

infrastructure for a European infrastructure for a European

innovation networkinnovation network

The example of the

IDECAT Network of Excellence


IDECAT IDECAT NoENoE (Case 2)(Case 2)Aim: Set up a sustainable research structure (~EIT) for the

European catalysis sector

Partners: 37 academic laboratories over 12 European Countries

�Network of Excellence: best researchers of Europe in

Catalysis

�2 Nobel Laureates

�CNRS, NRSC-C, CSIC, University of Southampton, CNR,

KU Leuven, MPG, EPFL, …

My position: Associate research and education (Eindhoven,

Strasbourg, Southampton)

WP12: Technology Transfer to the industry


Catalysis is Catalysis is ……A catalyst is…•Think of the catalyst under a car

•Yeast is a catalyst used to brew beer•A catalyst is a substance that influences a chemical reaction, in order to:

o Reduce waste

o Lower energy consumption

o Make new medicine possible

An animated introduction to catalysishttp://www.youtube.com/user/proftromp/videos

Catalysis as an enabling technology

•European catalyst market: 1.500 million € / year•80 per cent of all chemical industrial processes use catalysts

•EU chemical industry: 1.400.000 million € / year


AssignmentAssignment• The European Commission has set the following aims:

o One European market, also for research

o There is a belief that Europe should move towards Open Innovation

• I will explain this in the next slide

o A target for growth and jobs

• Innovation driven economy (Why an innovation economy? Why 3%?)

• Academia-industry collaboration

• Your target is to

o Design infrastructure that benefits Informatics Europe, IDECAT or a similar network

o While making Europe the most attractive continent for research and innovation in the world…

o … by designing and implementing enhancements to Open Innovation

• I will introduce “IDECAT” and the “open innovation” challenge in the

next slides

WHY?WHY?


Inside information on IDECATInside information on IDECAT• IDECAT

o used to be three networks of excellence on catalysis, thus 2/3 of staff made redundant at start

• emotional stress

o Project objectives not clear

o Professor are in the network most only for

• Research funding

• Prestige

o Notice: IDECAT budget can not be spend on research

• Participants o Do not know each other (information)

o Are individualistic, as opposed to working as a group

o Highly political environment (they are competitors, not colleagues)

o Cultural differences


Open Innovation by Open Innovation by

ChesbroughChesbrough

Source: Chesbrough (2003)

One Company(Multinational / MNC)






Patents

High TechStarters

Sell or licensefor cash(€ € €)






Patents



Use cash (€ € €)to obtain new technologies

(patents, start-ups)

High TechStarters





Patents





High TechStarters





One geographical region

Extended city: e.g. Munich / Bayern, Silicon Valley Patents





High TechStarters

Henry William Henry William ChesbroughChesbrough• Used to work at Quantum

o Product development

o Marketing

• Now Professor at Berkeley

• Coined the term “Open innovation”

• “Universities cannot participate in open

innovation, for as they are too slow”

(Chesbrough, 2003)

• Open innovation

o Focus on patents & start-up companies

o Inside one region (extended city, Silicon Valley)

o USA

o ICT sector


Your assignmentYour assignment

Open Innovation (Chesbrough) Your assignment

• Universities are too slow to

participate

• No university-industry transfer

• No interregional collaboration

• Focus on patents & start-up

companies

• IT sector in the USA

Note: Further research on the

above topics recommended

(Chesbrough, 2006)

• You are an academic network,

…

• … that has to work with industry

• Integrate European research

• From your experience, patents

and start-ups are not that

important

o Europe focusses on research

collaborations (Verspagen,

2005)

• Chemicals sector in Europe


The position of universities in The position of universities in

Open InnovationOpen Innovation

European advances in Open Innovation

The example of the European chemicals sector


More information about More information about

IDECAT IDECAT NoENoE (Case 2)(Case 2)Extended

partners:

IDECAT Industrial Board (IB)

�35 Chief Technology Officers of multinationals in the European Chemicals industry

�Shell, BASF, TOTAL, Repsol, ENI, Sasol, …

Very positive

evaluation:

� The European Commission mentioned they felt IDECAT was

the best performing out of nearly 200 similar networks

� They based this decision on our efforts for both technology

transfer to the industry and outreach� Both the academic IDECAT partners and the IDECAT IB

appreciated the knowledge infrastructure

Notes Became European Research Institute for Catalysis A.I.S.B.L.

(ERIC) http://www.eric-aisbl.eu/


Approach to implementing

“Open Innovation 2.0”1. Develop the organisational structure (IDECAT

Industrial Board (IDECAT IB))

2. Research road mapping + collaborative proposals

3. Implement infrastructure to pool knowledge

resources


Developing the organisational Developing the organisational

structure of IDECATstructure of IDECAT

IDECAT

37 Research Institutes

/ Universities

IDECAT Industrial Board

37 Multinationals in

Chemistry

European Commission

Socio-Economic Environment:

- Funding (FP7)

- Legal issues

IDECAT Industrial

Liaison Office

Support interaction to facilitate

exchange of knowledge

me & colleague in Valencia

Open Innovation according to

Chesbrough (2003, 2006)Open Innovation required for IDECAT Mission


Channels to Transfer Knowledge Channels to Transfer Knowledge

((BongersBongers et al., 2003)et al., 2003)

9. Patents

10. Spin-offs and

entrepreneurship

1. Sharing of facilities

2. Cooperation in education

3. Contract research

4. Publications

5. Conferences

6. Mobility of people

7. Informal contacts

8. Cooperation in R&D

Open Innovation required for IDECAT Mission

“Open Innovation 2.0”

Open Innovation according to

Chesbrough (2003, 2006)

Bongers et al. (2003) did an inventory of all possible channels to transfer knowledge


Start with Informal contactsStart with Informal contacts• Knowledge transfer almost always starts with this channel

• IDECAT Industrial Board formed…

• … from Chief Technology Officers known by IDECAT researchers� 35 Chief Technology Officers of multinationals in the European Chemicals

industry

� Shell, BASF, TOTAL, Repsol, ENI, Sasol, …

• Academia-Industry Research Roadmap developed and implemented

11/15/2013 19Jeroen Klijs – www.chainsmanagers.com

Collaborative Research is nextCollaborative Research is next• Cooperation in R&D

o Universities supply ideas, companies market

o Precompetitive research: Capacity building in EU

• Publicationso Papers with multinational authors well perceived

• Sharing of facilitieso Booklet: Information on experimental equipment “from

Software to Synchrotron”

• Academia-industry collaboration

• Collaboration in-between European regions

• Participants believe in the collaborative system

+

Acedemia-Industry

Acedemia-Academia

Acedemia-Academia-Industry


Last, all other channels for Last, all other channels for

knowledge transfer are developedknowledge transfer are developedThese channels support collaborative research that

was set up just before (which is why these channels for knowledge transfer come last)

• Education: Set up European PhD & MSc

• European world-leading conference on catalysis

• Mobility of researcherso Visits to other universities

o IDECAT Recruitment Service

• Contract research: Industrial Board buys research from academia and start-up companies

• Event to broker Patents and High-tech starters to the Industrial Board


The resulting structure for The resulting structure for

““Open Innovation 2.0Open Innovation 2.0”” at IDECATat IDECAT

IDEA MARKETJeroen Klijs – www.chainsmanagers.com 11/15/2013 22

Chesbroug:One Company

(Multinational / MNC)



(precompetitive)Collaborative Research• 37 MNCs

IDEA MARKET

• 37 Research institutes / universities(idea side)




Multiple geographical regions in Europe


IDEA MARKET





Multiple geographical regions in Europe


Collaboration in education

Patents and licensing

High tech starters

Mobility of people

IDEA MARKET


• high tech starters (SME)

Contract research

(OPEN)

(CLOSED)Jeroen Klijs – www.chainsmanagers.com 11/15/2013 25

ConclusionConclusion


Key research findingsKey research findings• Answers to research recommended by Chesbrough (2006):

o Open Innovation outside USA: EU

o inter-regional collaboration works

o transfer of knowledge beyond patents and start-ups (Bongers, 2003)

o University-Industry links can work


Benefits to IDECAT partnersBenefits to IDECAT partners• Both industrial and academic partners in IDECAT have access to a

set of tools that allow them to access knowledge throughout Europe

o Supportive when writing research grants

• Curie ITN: Recruitment service

• Dissemination section

• Partner search (small companies, analytics, modelling)

o A company that wants to develop an innovative product

• Has access to knowledge resources previously unavailable (lack of information)

• Can reduce development cost

o Promotional value

• European Commission called IDECAT the best performing Network of

Excellence out of nearly 200 similar networks


ReferencesReferencesBongers, F., Hertog, P. den, Vandeberg, R., & Segers, J. (2003, October). Naar een

meetlat voor wisselwerking: Verkenning van de mogelijkheden voor meting van kennisuitwisseling tussen publieke kennisinstellingen en

bedrijven/maatschappelijke organisaties [Towards the measurement of

interaction: Exploration of the possibilities for measuring technology exchange

between public research institutions and companies/social organisations] (Final

report to AWT). Dialogic, Utrecht: The Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy (AWT).

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation.

Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


Questions?Questions?

?

• Would such a system benefit Informatics Europe?


Chains ManagersChains Managers

Supporting academics and companies

to accelerate knowledge transfer


Challenges and solution to

implement Open Innovation 2.0Challenges

• Neutral ground is a benefit to

avoid:o Discussion within a university on dealing

with IP developed at the university

o Discussion in-between universities on

which system to use

• Data collection is a challenge

• Investment requirements

• There are additional benefits

that come with size of the pool

of knowledge

Chains Managers solutions

• We offer neutral ground,

shaped in a professional

solution

• We have proven experience in

collecting the data required

• We enable sharing of cost for

development and

maintenance over multiple

users

• We offer one central solution


Chains Managers – Our teamJeroen Klijs•Educated in chemical process engineering, in Technical

Innovation Sciences, and in Technology Policy

•Knowledge transfer expert with several previous positions in

that area

•Specialized in the development of infrastructure that

supports the commercialization of knowledge

Maarten Swemmer

•Educated in Human Computer Interaction: user centereddesign

•Worked on best in class content management processes and corresponding business implementation

•IT generalist with experience in online marketing, online tool

development and (integration in) complex IT landscapes


Chains ManagersInterested? For information, questions, or an

introduction to our tool, do contact us.

Supporting both academics and companies to

accelerate knowledge transfer

Jeroen Klijs [email protected]

www.chainsmanagers.com


Open innovation 2 0

Technology

Transcript of Open innovation 2 0