Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation 1

Visualizing the Invisible

Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

Project leaders: Tobias Fredberg, Pascal Le Masson, Blanche Segrestin, Martin Wiener

Team Members: Marine Agogué, Elsa Berthet, Martin Stötzel, Anna Yström

Munich, October 24th, 2011

Dilemmas of collective innovation

Recent insights in the literature suggest that

1. Successful collective innovation is based on the capacity to solve these dilemmas (see Ihl 2010)

2. There are today managers of collective innovation who might be able to organize this simultaneous solve (see Fredberg et al. 2011, Agogué & Yström 2010)

3

Motivation


Managing for solving the dilemmas of collective innovation: actors, activities, methods?

Management Dimension

Well-known dilemmas in innovation

In case of collective innovation:

– Some dilemmas are reduced: larger and cheaper access to knowledge and ideas…

– A lot of new dilemmas emerge!

Managers of collective innovation?

Take risk

Create Knowledge

Explore Exploit

Reuse Knowledge

Reduce Risk

Multiple perspective Shared vision

Multiple stakeholder Conflict of interests

Free commitment No work division

No authority Slow convergence

Share assets Protect assets

Collective innovation manager?

Research has focused on the innovation leader (“focal firm”) who makes use of external resources for his own goals… (Elmquist, Fredberg, Olilla 2009)

Recent results have underlined that these “heroes of open innovation” actually rely on organized milieux, structures and processes:

– First approaches have studied open innovation market intermediaries (Innocentive, Ninesigma,…) (Diener & Piller 2010)

– These works underlined the limits of pure brokering: limited cooperation, knowledge transfer rather than knowledge creation, limited exploration (Sieg et al. 2010, Birkinshaw 2011)

– Some works described more complex innovative milieux, collaborative ecosystems, platforms and colleges (Gawer 2009, Le Masson et al. 2011) that support the activities of open innovators

Hence there might be managers of collective innovation that are more than pure brokers... But their role, management areas and methods are largely hidden (research gap)

4

State of the art


Research Questions:

Where and how are these managers of collective innovation doing this?

What are the key management areas to create conditions for for collective innovation initiatives?

How can we help collective innovation managers to visualize/manage these areas?

1.

2.

3.

Four case studies to uncover a new actor: The collective innovation manager


Research Background and Method

Management

Dimensions

Simultaneous Solve? Interests/

Goals

Focus Governance

IP management

Innovation strategy

Exploration vs. Exploitation

Hierarchical vs. Autonomous

Company vs. Network

Protecting vs. Revealing

Centralized vs. Decentralized

Organization

Conflicting vs. Collective

Four Case Studies to help “visualize” the invisible collective innovation manager

Management Dimensions

Four case studies to uncover a new actor: The collective innovation manager


Research Background and Method

Toward a new management actor: The collective innovation manager, relying on specific managerial techniques:

visualizing the unknown,

visualizing the interdependencies,

visualizing the nature of the OI place,

visualizing network creation

Simultaneous Solve?

Interests/ Goals

Focus Governance

IP management

Innovation strategy

Exploration vs. Exploitation

Hierarchical vs. Autonomous

Company vs. Network

Protecting vs. Revealing

Centralized vs. Decentralized

Organization

Conflicting vs. Collective

Our case findings support the assumption that collective innovation managers apply simultaneous solves in several management dimensions


Case Study Results (Siemens)

Organization

IP Management

Governance

Centralized: Structures, guidelines, processes and tools

Decentralized: Responsible for running collective innovation initiatives

Protecting: Intellectual property is systematically secured in patents

Revealing: Unused IP and technologies are commercialized via licenses and Spin-outs

Simultaneous Solve1)

No top-down targets and KPIs, and no pure bottom-up activities

Idea selection: Bottom-up pre-selection (short-listing) via voting, but final top-down management decision

1) Harvey balls: = simultaneous solve identified; = simultaneous solve not identified

1.

Example: Simultaneous solve, based on the visualization of the unknown (1/2)


Case study result (I-care)

EXPLOITATIONS Known competences and skills Established firms and

interactions with partners Stable identity of the objects

EXPLORATIONS Re-discussing the identity of

the objects Exploring new ideas Involving new actors

Based on most recent design theory (C-K theory, Hatchuel & Weil 2003, 2009)

Example: Simultaneous solve, based on the visualization of the unknown (2/2)

9

Using C-K referential : Cases of ST-Microelectronics and of I-Care

Generated actions of C-K referential 1. Define new projects for established

firms

1 Mobilizing existing knowledge in a different concept is attainable for established firms

2 Identifying complementary actors who have the knowledge and/or skills that are currently lacking

3 & 4 Identifying missing knowledge, and interesting concepts to develop

+

Launching collaborative workshops with relevant actors to fill the knowledge gaps and to explore interesting unexplored concepts


1.

+

2. Build new partnerships

3. Expand the scope of action for institutions who want to act as an open innovation facilitator

4. Foster new ways to interact (seminars)

Example: Visualize Conflicts to manage collective innovation (1/2)

10

Few relationships between stakeholders

Farm

Coop

Research Center

Local Auth.

NGO

Farm

Farm

Farm

Agrosystem

That produces food for humans

That provides food of good quality

Maximizing yields Preserving natural equilibria

Only with profitable crops

With areas of regulations (grasslands)

Using chemicals, fertilizers…

Using ecosystem services


Initial situation

Initial situation: no common ground

Concepts Knowledge

Example: Visualize Conflicts to manage collective innovation (2/2)

11 Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

Functions having an individual potential value

Functions having a collective potential value

Design parameters (DP) activated at an individual level

i.e. use fertilizers to increase grassland yields

i.e. reduce the use of herbicides to preserve groundwater

DP activated at a collective level

i.e. coordinate grassland localization to reduce individual costs for farmers

i.e. coordinate grassland localization to maximize biological control

List of attributes from a productive and from an ecological perspective:

Common/cleaving attributes Potential values associated to these attributes

A productive agrosystem that preserves natural equilibria

Without grassland

With grasslands

Frequent mowing

No mowing in Summer

Reduced herbic.

No use of herbicides

Use of herbicides

Use of herbic.

Without localization of

grasslands

Without localization

With localization

No mowing

Visualize opportunities for open innovation that overcome the initial dilemma

Building on the identified simultaneous solves, we were able to identify four key management areas for collective innovation initiatives


Key Management Areas

Collective Innovation

Management

Issue and opportunties

How can we use what we know to

open the box?

Exploitation vs. exploration

strategy Focus

How can we create a

legitimate place for open

innovation?

Company vs. network

focus

Interdepen-dencies

How can we go from conflicting

interests to collective goals?

Conflicting vs. collective

interests/goals

Media Infrastructure

How can we find the relevant people and through what

channels/tools?

Centralized vs. decentralized organization

2.

Uncover an (unexpected) collective innovation management…


Key Management Areas More than incentives…

…Commit the right people to contribute to collective

innovation

Don’t avoid conflicts, don’t look for trade

offs… …Deal with

conflicts in a creative way

Before sharing knowledge …

…Share an agenda of

open issues

Not a shared vision! A legitimate place for collective

innovation


Management

Interdepen-dencies





channels/tools?

Focus

How can we create a


innovation?



open the box?

… with relevant visualization techniques


Key Management Areas


Management

Interdepen-dencies





channels/tools?

Focus

How can we create a


innovation?



open the box?

Visualize the unknown

Visualize the emerging, relevant networks

Visualize interdependencies

Visualize the legitimate place

More than incentives… …Commit the right people to contribute to collective

innovation

Don’t avoid conflicts, don’t look for trade

offs… …Deal with

conflicts in a creative way

Before sharing knowledge …

…Share an agenda of

open issues

Not a shared vision! A legitimate place for collective

innovation

A workshop concept to help visualizing and managing each of the 4 key management areas


Visualization Workshops

Visualize the opportunity space

Visualize the infrastructure (and performance)

Visualize conflicts and interdependencies

Visualize the nature of collective innovation

Objectives

Diagnosis technique (visualization)

(Tutorial for) Practical application

Conclusion

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE 1

2

3

4


Management

Interdependencies

How can we go from conflicting interests to

collective goals?


How can we find the relevant people and

through what channels/tools?

Focus

How can we create a


innovation?


How can we use what we

know to open the box?

3.

Workshop – Visualizing the Unknown


1) Purpose Unveiling innovation strategies dilemmas “exploration vs. exploitation”

Can a innovation lock-in situation be diagnosed, and is it possible to objectify the gap between

expected innovations and the ones that are currently attainable by existing innovation

capabilities ?

2) Case study Harnessing ICT innovation to augment the lives of the fragile and elderly people in the Rhone-

Alps region (France) An assessment : demand on the market increases (aging population) whereas few products or

services arrive on the market today and provide successfully solutions An orphan innovation situation : an innovation highly expected by society, but that no actor or

consortium of actors can manage to process whereas all the structural conditions to foster it are gathered.

3) Initial diagnosis

There is a gap between attainable exploitations (that mobilize known competences and skills, established firms and interactions with partners, dealing with a stable identity of the objects) and expected explorations (that re-discuss the identity of the objects, explore new ideas and involve new actors)

4) How can an OI manager solve the dilemma?

Visualizing the unknown can make it possible to overcome an exploration / exploitation dilemma

5) Tutorial for an open innovation manager

6) Conclusion

Visualizing unknown paths of innovation created at a collective level can help an open

innovation manager in solving conflicting situations.

16

2. Visualization I: Heat Maps

4. Analysis and Conclusions

3. Visualisation II: Integrated Tree Map

1. Scope Definition

Number of Ideas by Region (Attribute 2)

Max.

Workshop

Visualizing the Communication Infrastructure (Performance)

Platform

Origin Ideas Evaluation/Rating

Database

Who contributes, how much? (Quantity)

How good are the contributions?

(Quality)

Idea contributors with differentiating attributes (e.g., geography, age, sector, department etc.)

Number of Ideas by Age (Attribute 1)

low

medium

high

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

< 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 > 55

Max.

Workshop Tutorial

1. Scope

a) Define relevant user attributes for quantitative analyses (e.g., region, age, department etc.)

b) Define quality measure (e.g., user rating, degree of novelty, feasibility, business benefit)

2. Heat Maps

a) Extract data and calculate distribution of ideas for each selected user attribute

b) Draw heat maps

3. Integrated Tree Map

a) Rank attributes and associated categories by idea concentration (maxmax top left)

b) Draw tree map

4. Quantity vs. Quality

a) Identify high quality ideas and map into tree

b) Derive conclusions

Attribute 1

Attribute 2

Attribute 3

11 February 2013

Martin Wiener; Martin Stötzel

Quantity Quality

Stars „Untapped“ Stars

1) Initial goal

Overcome conflicting objectives e.g. “farming production vs. environment protection”

Is it possible to transform a conflicting object into an asset source of collective innovation?

2) Case study

A French cereal plain : How to combine crop production & environment protection (as

intensive agricultural practices are threatening the environment)

A solution proposed by ecologists is to reintroduce grasslands in the agrosystem to preserve

natural equilibria

Problem: it is a conflicting solution. Grasslands are less profitable than crops, so this solution

triggers high individual costs for farmers

3) Initial diagnosis

Stakeholders (farmers, naturalists…) have divergent interests in rural areas

(agrosystems): visualize convergences and divergences

Agrosystem

That produces food for humans

That provides food of good quality

Maximizing yields

Preserving natural equilibria

Only with profitable crops

With areas of regulations (grasslands)

Using chemicals, fertilizers…

Using ecosystem services

4) How can an OI manager solve the dilemma?

Functions having an individual potential value

Functions having a collective potential

value

Design parameters (DP) activated at an individual level

i.e. use fertilizers to increase grassland yields

Individual innovation

i.e. reduce the use of herbicides to preserve groundwater

DP activated at a collective level

i.e. coordinate grassland localization to reduce individual costs for farmers

i.e. coordinate grassland localization to maximize biological control

(Knowledge)

A productive agrosystem that preserves natural equilibria

Without grassland

With grasslands

Frequent mowing

No mowing in Summer

Reduced herbic.

No use of herbicides

Use of herbicides

Use of herbic.


of grasslands


With localization

No mowing

List of attributes from a productive and from an ecological perspective:

Common/cleaving attributes Potential values associated to these attributes

(Concepts)

f. Visualize opportunities for open innovation that overcome the initial dilemma

5) Tutorial for an open innovation manager

1° Diagnose the conflict: Specify the attributes (design parameters, functions) of the conflicting object

2° Identify the potential values of cleaving attributes + Find new attributes with potential values

3° Represent existing design paths, and propose intermediary paths that create a common ground between actors

4° Visualize interdependences between actors created by the new solutions proposed, and stimulate innovative collaboration

DP1a

DP3 DP2a

DP2b DP1b

Consensual attributes

Cleaving attributes

Open innovation

6) Conclusion Visualizing interdependences between stakeholders and new potential values created at a

collective level can help an open innovation manager in solving conflicting situations.

Workshop

Visualize Interdependences

11 February 2013

E. Berthet, B. Segrestin

1. Conduct interviews with a subset of involved key people: What are the tensions that they

experience between the home organization and the arena?

What are the specific dilemmas involved in managing these tensions?

Trust

Loyalty

Knowledge Generation

Career

4. Identify and emphasize critical manifestations of legitimacy in the open innovation collaboration

3. Characterize the type of higher level solutions needed re-solve the dilemmas in the open innovation collaboration

Diagnosis Open collective innovation is paradoxical to participants. They need to optimize both for the collective and for the home organization. The result is a number of tension/dilemmas that must be resolved in order for the open innovation collaboration to be perceived as a legitimate place to share knowledge and generate ideas.

How can we create a legitimate place for

open innovation?

Career

Home organization

viewpoint

Collective effort

viewpoint

Higher level solution Example

2. Define Who are the key people that must be involved in dialogues to solve the tensions? What rules need to be established to enable an open and honest conversation?

Arrange dialogue Resolve dilemmas

Workshop – Creating Legitimacy in Open Innovation


OI Arena

Analyze

Solutions The dilemmas are partly solved by creating legitimacy on the project level, but also on a higher level, where management plays an important role

Risks If the process of creating legitimacy is not open, you end up in a game like situation where no joint development actually takes place.

Higher level solutions to be developed in open dialogues

between stakeholders

Knowledge generation

Career

Trust

Loyalty

Manifest Solution

SAFER legiti-macy

Offices

Logo

Academic papers

Shared Experi-ences

Office key

Con-tracts

Business cards

Relationships with

others

Conclusion

… in which “visualizing the invisible” (the unknown) is critical


An (emerging) model of the management of collective innovation…

Known interests, known competences, known

futures…

Incentives, knowledge and value sharing =

optimisation & planning

If the new changes the

game management limits the new to stabilize the

game

If the new changes the

game management broadens the

unknown!

Discover interests, values, techniques, stakeholders…

Visualize the unknown, creative use of conflict,

networks expansion, legitimate cooperative

place

Thanks to PPF support, this research opens a promising research program, with a new research network!

Market-based models of open innovation: brokers, planning & optimisation

Emerging model of collective innovation management: shaping the unknown

Backup


Publication related to PPF project

Publikationen (Zeitschriften, Buchkapitel, etc.) aus den Jahren 2010 und 2011

AGOGUÉ, M., LE MASSON, P. & ROBINSON, D. K. R. 2011. Orphan Innovation, or when path-creation goes stale: missing entrepreneurs or missing innovation? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, (submitted).

AGOGUE, M., YSTRÖM, A., & LE MASSON, P. 2011. Expanding the Role of Intermediaries – Achieving collaborative radical innovation by managing exploration processes. International Journal of Innovation Management (submitted).

BERTHET, E., BRETAGNOLLE, V. & SEGRESTIN, B. 2011. Introduction of semi-perennial forage crops in an intensive cereal plain to restore biodiversity: a need for collective management Journal for Sustainable Agriculture (accepted).

ELMQUIST, M., FREDBERG, T., OLLILA, S. & YSTRÖM, A. forthcoming, 2011. Role Confusion in Open Innovation Intermediary Arenas. In: WITTKE, V., HANEKOP, H. & SPINDLER, G. (eds.) Collaborative production and innovation.

GIANNOPOULOU, E., YSTRÖM, A. & OLLILA, S. 2011. Turning Open Innovation into Practice: Open Innovation Research through the Lens of Managers. International Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 505–524.

GIANNOPOULOU, E., YSTRÖM, A., OLLILA, S., FREDBERG, T. & ELMQUIST, M. 2010. Implications of Openness: A Study into (All) the Growing Literature on Open Innovation. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5, 162-180.

Konferenzbeiträge aus den Jahren 2010 und 2011

BERTHET, E. 2011. From common pool resources to collectively designed resources: A need for innovative governance systems. Poster presented at Elinor Ostrom’s Doctoral Master Class. Montpellier, 21st June 2011.

EKLÖF, A., YSTRÖM, A. & OLLILA, S. 2011. Open Innovation -Anything goes? A Review of Empirical Research on Open Innovation. EURAM. Tallinn, Estonia, 1-4 June, 2011.

ELMQUIST, M., OLLILA, S. & YSTRÖM, A. forthcoming, 2011. Enabling knowledge creation among competitors: the open innovation arena. Nordic Academy of Management conference. Stockholm, August 22-24, 2011.

STÖTZEL, M. & WIENER, M. 2011. Managing Open Innovation--Trade-off or Simultaneous Solve? In: Informatik Proceedings, 2011.

STÖTZEL, M., WIENER, M. & AMBERG, M. 2011. Key Differentiators of Open Innovation Platforms – A Market-oriented Perspective. In: Wirtschaftinformatik Proceedings, 2011.

YSTRÖM, A. forthcoming, 2011. Exploring an open innovation project unleashing the creative potential: Stories of resistance and emancipation. EGOS. Gothenburg,Sweden, 7-8 July 2011.

YSTROM, A. & AGOGUÉ, M. 2011. Radical open innovation: the new role of intermediaries. Findings from collaborative intermediary arenas in Sweden and France. International Product Development Management Conference. Delft, the Netherlands.


In 2010, a group a researchers started collaborating on a joint research project funded by the Peter-Pribilla-Foundation


Research Setting


Collaboration (Meetings, Topics)

Individual Case Studies

Kick-off

Nuremberg 15 Dec 2010

Gothenburg 22 Mar 2011

Paris 30 Jun 2011

Paris 15 Sep 2011

Munich 24 Oct 2011

Final

presentation

Team Workshops

1. Four reference cases: identify critical dilemmas, techniques to solve them, efficiency of these techniques

2. Visualization Management Techniques of the OI manager (building the OI square):

a) Visualize the unknown

b) Visualize interdependencies

c) Visualize communication networks

d) Visualize an identity

3. A workable format to help OI managers: “how do you design your own OI leader”

a) Interactive, based on experiences

b) Cumulative

c) Self evaluation: what kind of dilemma do you solve.

1 1

1

2

2

3

Case studies Case studies

Case studies

Visualization

Visualization

OI Manager

Ambidexterity is an established theme in management research

27

Theoretical Background

• Ambidexterity is the state of being equally adept in the use of both the left and the right hand

• In management research, ambidexterity is usually referring to organizations who manage to efficiently run their current business while at the same time preparing for a changing future:

• Relevant literature, examples:

o Duncan, R. 1976. The Ambidextrous Organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation

o March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning

o Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change

o Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance


EXPLORATION EXPLOITATION

PROTECTING REVEALING

Prior research indicates that successful collective innovators apply contradicting approaches simultaneously for managing their innovation activities


Motivation

Research Questions:

Successful collective innovators seem to reconcile contradicting management approaches (Simultaneous Solve), but…

1.Where and how are they doing this?

2.What are the key management areas for collective innovation initiatives?

3.How can we help collective innovators to visualize/manage these areas?


Simultaneous Solve:

Ambidexterity

Examples:

SAFER Context

170 persons hold keys to SAFER office

• 50% from Chalmers, 50% from other partners

• ca 40 PhD students (40 % industrial)

• 45 full time in SAFER

VINNOVA

Swedish Road Administration

Region Västra Götaland

CHALMERS Gothenburg university SP VTI TÖI Viktoria institute Imego AB Sicomp AB

Autoliv Epsilon

Folksam Saab

SMW Scan. Auto. Suppl.

Scania Telia Sonera

Volvo CC Volvo Group

LSP

Crash Post-crash Pre-crash Traffic Safety Analysis

Focus areas Incidents and accidents

Driver state/action/reaction

Prediction for accident prevention

Methods for evaluation of safety systems

Electric Vehicles and Vehicle Combination

Human Models and Biomechanics


Organizational ambidexterity is a renown theme in management science


Ambidexterity

• Ambidexterity is the state of being equally adept in the use of both left and right appendages (such as the hands)

• In Management, organizational ambidexterity is usually referring to organizations who manage to efficiently run their current business while at the same time preparing for a changing future

• Literature e.g.:

o Duncan, R. 1976. The ambidextrous Organization: Designing dual structures for Innovation

o March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning

o Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change

o Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. 2008. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance

Each team is running their specific case study which is dedicated to the underlying research question


Research Question

Successful collective innovators seem to reconcile contradicting approaches for managing their innovation activities (“Simultaneous Solve”), but…

1. How are they doing this?

2. What are the “hidden/invisible” variables (from a leadership, governance, process, and IT tool perspective) enabling them to resolve the resulting dilemmas?


Trade-off:


Simultaneous Solve:

ambidextrous approach

We see leading companies apply ambidextrous approaches (Simultaneous Solve) with regards to innovation management


Simultaneous Solve - Examples

• Organizational ambidexterity: Procter & Gamble have decentralized their R&D unit closer towards the business units and simultaneously created central innovation „think-tanks“ for disruptive innovations

• Embedded Linux (OSS): Nokia and Philips in some cases have chosen Linux as operating system for their electronic devices. The developers engage with the Linux open source community and selectively share some of their own innovations while protecting (hiding) others

• Procter & Gamble as well as Siemens systematically identify Intellectual Property (patents) which they do not use for their own business and commercialize it via Licensing and Spin-outs

Source: Web research, press articles

Our case study: How does Siemens manage their Open Innovation initiatives? Do they apply the Simultaneous Solve?


Case Study

• Founded 1857

• 400.000 employees

• 31.000 R&D people

• Annual R&D spend: ~4 bn. EUR, 56.000 active patents

• # 34 in Business Week’s list of most innovative companies worldwide (ahead of Dell, Vodafone, Nike)

How does Siemens manage collective/open innovation, and do they apply the Simultaneous Solve?

Siemens has a central Open Innovation unit which provides structures, processes and tools


Open Innovation at Siemens

*) Organization as of 04/2011

Industry Energy Healthcare

Corporate Functions (cross-sector)

*)

Corporate Technology (CTO)

Open Innovation

CTO OI

Siemens CTO OI

Open Innovation Activities Framework (by Siemens CTO OI)

“Service provider”

Our case study included interviews with the central OI unit as well as operating business units (which run OI initiatives)


Case Interviews CENTRAL UNIT CTO Open Innovation • Interview with head of Unit Dr.

Lackner • Interview with Open

Innovation Specialist

“There is hard work to be done in opening doors

while maintaining some control, (…)”

Dr. Lackner

OPERATING BUSINESS UNITS

Siemens Student Award Middle-East (Dubai),

2011

Smart Grid Contest, 2011 Sustainability Idea Contest (internal), 2010

Technology Accelerators; Out-licensing, spin-outs

Innovation Hubs Contest (internal),

2011

Our findings support first indications from prior literature that the simultaneous solve is applied in OI Management


Case Study Findings (1/2)

Organization

MGT. DIMENSION FINDINGS SIMULTANEOUS

SOLVE 1)

The central open innovation unit develops structures and concepts, identifies technical solutions and solution providers, advertises the concepts across the business units, and supervises the open innovation initiatives.

By contrast, the individual initiatives are then run as projects by the respective (decentral) business units with guidance and sparring from the central unit.

Governance

• Open innovation initiatives are neither demanded top-down from the management, nor initiated autonomously by the internal or external communities. It is rather the middle management that decides that open innovation may help in their business context

• There are also no top-down targets set, neither for individual open innovation initiatives nor for the central open innovation unit

• The decision process of selecting the best ideas uses a combination of bottom-up and top-down mechanisms: Short-listing of ideas is done via the votes of the community and a jury of managers and experts perform the final selection

1) Harvey balls: Black ball = simultaneous solve identified. White ball = simultaneous solve not identified

However this does not apply to all dimensions. Motivation of participants seems to be limited to intrinsic mechanisms


Case Study Findings (2/2)

IP Management

MGT. DIMENSION FINDINGS SIMULTANEOUS

SOLVE 1)

IP protection is a well established practice because IP has always been vital for Siemens business success in competitive markets

A dedicated subsidiary (Siemens Technology Accelerator) works with venture capitalists to establish new start-ups that make use of un-used IP by developing innovative business models

Motivation

• Siemens heavily relies on intrinsic motivation. Receiving attention and feedback in virtual discussions with other participants seems to provide a sufficient motivation for employees to contribute.

• For internal initiatives, the prospect of presenting own ideas in front of a management jury may motivate employees to invest significant efforts in open innovation activities

Innovation Strategy and

other dimensions

? • Innovation Strategy (exploration vs. exploitation) has not been discussed as

a management dimension, in the conducted case interviews

• Also, we could not yet identify additional management dimensions relevant for Open Innovation management

1) Harvey balls: Black ball = simultaneous solve identified. White ball = simultaneous solve not identified

How does the Simultaneous Solve impact performance? Can we measure the performance of Innovation Communities?


Performance of Innovation Communities

Performance KPIs

• Intensity of communication

• Number of idea & proposals

• Selected ideas / solutions

• Business benefit

• ...

Measurement (KPIs)

Attributes of participants

• Specific role-profiles of participants

• Technical / educational background of participants

• Time participants spend in the network

• Geographical proximity

• Belonging to the same business unit / area

• ...

Communication Infrastructure Performance Evaluation 1. Nodes = Participants

2. Arcs = Collaboration

3. Centricity = Performance

4. Colours = Attributes

Appendix


Resolving dilemmas in collective innovation The I-Care case

28 th June 2011

Paris, Pribilla group

Marine AGOGUE CGS, MINES ParisTech F-75 272 Paris, France Tel: +33 1 40 51 9201

Mail: [email protected],

mailto:[email protected],[email protected]




A C-K referential helps to diagnose the gap between reality and expectations, and provides a way to objectify the distance between attainable exploitation and expected exploration

Marine Agogué – MINES ParisTech

C-K referential on ICT for autonomy in Rhône-Alpes region

Diagnosing exploration / exploitation dilemmas

attainable exploitations

expected explorations

Data : workshop analysis, interviews of firms, questionnaire (22 responses) Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation 41


Using the C-K referential : cases of ST-Microelectronics and of I-Care

1 – Define new projects for established firms 2 – Build new partnerships 3 - Expand the scope of action for institutions who want to act as an open innovation facilitator 4 - Foster new ways to interact (seminars)

Visualizing the unknown to overcome dilemmas

1 Mobilizing existing knowledge in a different concept is attainable for

established firms

Generated actions of C-K referential

2 Identifying complementary

actors who have the knowledge and/or skills that are currently

lacking 3 & 4

Identifying missing knowledge, and interesting concepts to develop +

Launching collaborative workshops with relevant actors to fill the knowledge gapsand to explore interesting unexplored concepts



C-K referential : A tool that requires to mobilize innovative design C-K theory and its formalisms *

How to build the C-K referential ? Toolkit for a OI leader

2

1

3 3

4

5 5 6

STEP 1 Gather classical knowledge (experts) & list all the current projects STEP 2 From this first knowledge basis, build the known paths of innovation STEP 3 Expand the knowledge basis, meet new experts and build a robust model of high-level of abstraction STEP 4 & 5 Expand the knowledge and concept spaces until no more expertise or project seems out of the scope STEP 6 Position projects on the innovation field mapping

An Open Innovation can then rely on such a tool for balancing between attainable exploitations and expected explorations

* Bibliography : Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2009) C-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design 19, 181-192. 4. Hatchuel, A., Le Masson P., Weil,B. (2004). C-K theory in practice, lessons from industrial applications. Annual meeting of The Design Society, Dubrovnik.


Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation The case of open management of farming systems

Elsa Berthet

Blanche Segrestin

October 2011 – Mines Paristech

Diagnosis of dilemmas:

Initial

situation: no

common

ground Few relationships

between stakeholders

Farm

Coop

Research

Center

Local

Auth.

NGO

Farm

Farm

Farm

Initial situation

Agrosystem

That produces food

for humans

That provides food of

good quality

Maximizing yields Preserving natural

equilibria

Only with

profitable crops

With areas of regulations

(grasslands)

Using chemicals,

fertilizers…

Using ecosystem

services


Identify alternative ways to deal with the

dilemmas

Functions having

an individual

potential value

Functions having a

collective

potential value

Design

parameters (DP)

activated at an

individual level

i.e. use fertilizers to

increase grassland yields

i.e. reduce the use of

herbicides to preserve

groundwater

DP activated at

a collective level

i.e. coordinate grassland

localization to reduce

individual costs for

farmers

i.e. coordinate

grassland localization to

maximize biological

control

(Knowledge)

A productive agrosystem that

preserves natural equilibria

Without

grassland

With

grasslands

Frequent

mowing

No mowing in

Summer

Reduced

herbic.

No use of

herbicides

Use of

herbicides Use of

herbic.

Without

localization of

grasslands

Without

localization

With

localization

No mowing

List of attributes from a productive

and from an ecological perspective:

Common/cleaving attributes

Potential values associated to

these attributes

(Concepts)

Visualize opportunities for open innovation

that overcome the initial dilemma


Ex.

2) Visualize interdependencies

Grassland

With fodder

production

Without fodder

production

Frequent

mowing

No mowing

in Summer

1) Visualize grassland design parameters

Use of

herbicides

No use

of herb.

Without

localization

With

localization

Reduced

herb. No use

of herb.

Use of

herb.

Without

localization

With

localization

Farm

Farm

Coop

Research

Center

Local

Auth.

NGO

Farm

Farm

Loss of

harvest,

Pests

Biological

control

Watero

rg.


Empty pattern

1° Diagnose the conflict: Specify the attributes (design

parameters, functions) of the conflicting object

2° Identify the potential values of cleaving attributes +

Find new attributes with potential values

3° Represent existing design paths, and propose

intermediary paths that create a common ground

between actors

4° Visualize interdependences between

actors created by the new solutions

proposed, and stimulate innovative

collaboration

DP1a DP3 DP2a

DP2b DP1b


The visualization of the communication infrastructure and its performance is based on the (quantitative) origin and the (qualitative) rating of idea contributions

Analysis Framework

Platform

Origin Ideas Evaluation/Rating

Database

Quantitative Analyses

Qualitative Analyses

Idea contributors with differentiating attributes (e.g., geography, age, job title, sector, department etc.)

Heat maps visualize the distribution of ideas by selected user attributes; by combining heat maps, the tree map offers an integrated perspective on “hot spots”

Visualization: Heat & Tree Maps (Idea Quantity)

Number of Ideas by Age (Attribute 1)

low

medium

high

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

< 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 > 55

Number of Ideas by Region (Attribute 2)

Attribute 1

Attribute ...

Attribute n

600

280 120 140 60

400 200

300 100

Tree Map: Number of Ideas by Attributes

Max-Max

Min-Max

Max.

Max.

By comparing quantitative and qualitative “hot spots”, the collective innovation manager can identify “untapped” target groups and derive corrective actions

Evaluation: Idea Quantity vs. Quality

Quantity of Ideas (Count) Quality of Ideas (Rating)

Fewer ideas, but better

quality

Same structure

More ideas, but lower

quality Collective Innovation Manager: Pay special attention to “untapped” stars and take corrective actions

Stars „Untapped“

Stars

Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

Education

Transcript of Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation