Resolving dilemmas of collective innovation

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

2

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)

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

Take Risk

Multiple perspective

Multiple stakeholder

Free commitment

No authority

Share assets

Shared vision

Conflict of interests

No work division

Slow convergence

Protect assets

3

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)

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.

Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation 4

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

Research Background and Method

Management Dimensions

SimultaneousSolve? Interests/

Goals

FocusGovernance

IP management

Innovation strategy

Exploration vs. Exploitation

Hierarchical vs. Autonomous

Company vs. Network

Protecting vs. Revealing

Centralized vs. Decentralized

Organization

Conflictingvs. 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

SimultaneousSolve? Interests/

Goals

FocusGovernance

IP management

Innovation strategy

Exploration vs. Exploitation

Hierarchical vs. Autonomous

Company vs. Network

Protecting vs. Revealing

Centralized vs. Decentralized

Organization

Conflictingvs. 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.


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

Example: Visualize the Unknown to support collective innovation (1/2)

Visualization (of opportunities)

8

Example: Visualize the Unknown to support collective innovation (2/2)

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

Generated actions of C-K referential1. 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)

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 & 4Identifying 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.

3.

4.

+

9

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

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

10

Concepts Knowledge

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


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

The initial concept

conciliates conflicting

attributes of the

agrosystem

List of attributes from a productive and from an ecological perspective:Þ Common/cleaving attributesÞ Potential values associated to

these attributes

Visualize interdependences between actors: collaborations required for collective DP, or beneficiaries of new collective values

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

Build intermediary

paths with new DP


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

Interdepen-dencies

How can we go from conflicting

interests to collective goals?

Media Infrastructure

How can we find the relevant people and through what

channels/tools?

Focus

How can we create a

legitimate place for open

innovation?

Issue and opportunties

How can we use what we know to

open the box?

Structu

ring t

he

innovation field

Connecting

people

Committing p

eopleSustaining

openness

Exploitation vs. exploration

strategy

Company vs. network

focus

Conflicting vs. collective

interests/goals

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 interdependenciesVisualize 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 WorkshopsVisualize 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 STRUCTURE1

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?

Structu

ring th

e

innovation field

Connecting

people

Committing peopleSustaining

openness

3.

15

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 ofthe 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.

a. What are the existing projects

b. What is society expecting ?

c. What could be a

higher level concept that

helps to expand the

classic model of existing actors ?

d. Who are the relevant actors to involve?

e. How to deal with unexplored concepts?


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 dilemmasinvolved in managing these tensions?

Trust

Loyalty

Knowledge Generation

Career

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

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

DiagnosisOpen 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

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

RisksIf 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…

Discover interests, values, techniques, stakeholders…

Known interests, known competences, known

futures…

Incentives, knowledge and value sharing =

optimisation & planning

Shape the unknown, creative use of conflict,

networks expansion, legitimate cooperative

place

If the new changes the

game management limits the new to stabilize the

game

If the new changes the

game management broadens the

unknown!

Backup


20

Ambidexterity is an established theme in management researchTheoretical 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



EXPLORATIONEXPLOITATION

PROTECTING REVEALING

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

MotivationResearch 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

VINNOVASwedish Road Administration

Region Västra Götaland

CHALMERSGothenburg universitySPVTITÖIViktoria instituteImego ABSicomp AB

AutolivEpsilon

FolksamSaab

SMWScan. Auto. Suppl.

ScaniaTelia Sonera

Volvo CC Volvo Group

LSP

Crash Post-crashPre-crashTraffic 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 scienceAmbidexterity

• 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


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


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

ILLUSTRATIVE


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

EXAMPLES


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 toolsOpen 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 InterviewsCENTRAL UNITCTO 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

ScheduledScheduled


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 FINDINGSSIMULTANEOUS

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 FINDINGSSIMULTANEOUS

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 DISCUSSION

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


Collaboration (Meetings, Topics)

Individual Case Studies

Kick-off

Nuremberg15 Dec 2010

Gothenburg22 Mar 2011

Paris30 Jun 2011

Paris15 Sep 2011

Munich24 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 studiesCase studies

Case studies

Visualization

Visualization

OI Manager

Appendix


Resolving dilemmas in collective innovationThe I-Care case

28 th June 2011Paris, Pribilla group

Marine AGOGUECGS, MINES ParisTechF-75 272 Paris, FranceTel: +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 36


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

1Mobilizing existing knowledge in a different concept is attainable for

established firms

Generated actions of C-K referential

2Identifying complementary

actors who have the knowledge and/or skills

that are currently lacking3 & 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

33

4

556

STEP 1Gather classical knowledge (experts) & list all the current projects

STEP 2From this first knowledge basis, build the known paths of innovation

STEP 3Expand the knowledge basis, meet new experts and build a robust model of high-level of abstraction

STEP 4 & 5Expand the knowledge and concept spaces until no more expertise or project seems out of the scope

STEP 6Position 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 InnovationThe 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 situationAgrosystem

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


40

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 grassland

s

Frequent mowing

No mowing in Summer

Reduced

herbic.

No use of herbicide

s

Use of herbicides

Use of herbic.

Without localization

of grasslands

Without localizatio

n

With localization

No mowing

The initial

concept

conciliates

conflicting

attributes of the

agrosystem

List of attributes from a productive and from an ecological perspective:ÞCommon/cleaving attributesÞPotential values associated to these attributes

(Concepts)

Visualize opportunities for open innovation that overcome the

initial dilemma

g. Visualize interdependences between

actors: - collaborations required

for collective DP, or- beneficiaries of new

collective values

Build

intermediary

paths with

new DP


41

Ex.

2) Visualize interdependenciesGrasslan

d

With fodder production

Without fodder

production

Frequent mowing

No mowing in Summer

1) Visualize grassland design parameters

Use of herbicide

s

No use of

herb.

Without localizatio

n

With localizatio

n

Reduced herb.

No use of

herb.

Use of herb.

Without localizatio

n

With localizatio

n

Farm

Farm

Coop

Research Center

Local Auth.

NGO

Farm

Farm

Loss of harvest,

Pests

Biological control

Waterorg.


42

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

DP2bDP1b


43

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

üü

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)

lowmediumhigh

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

Many ideasFew ideas

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

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

Stars „Untapped“Stars

Resolving dilemmas of collective innovation

Education

Transcript of Resolving dilemmas of collective innovation