Difference between revisions of "Scenario 3 - SuperNova"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with '- trend of companies towards open innovation, more than open source - includes big brands drawing talent to their 'edges' <br> - competitive companies embrace open innovation an…') |
SHenderson (talk | contribs) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
RENAME THIS TO: Scenario 3 - Open Big Brand World <br> | |||
- | |||
<br> | <br> | ||
In 2010, Proctor & Gamble Co (P&G) had been successful in inventing a new company innovation process and transformed their research and development model to such an extent that more than half of the companys innovations originated externally. P&Gs connect & develop open innovation model was widely known and openly discussed in company strategy discussions. The new method leveraged the strength of their brand, embraced the collective brains of the world and plugged into various networks of external expertise to draw ideas for subsequent in-house development. In the five years from 2010, elements of the P&G model were being mimicked by leading companies, across several industries. In terms of geographical take-up, companies in Japan, Singapore and America were most receptive to the new management innovation and first off the blocks in extensively adopting the new model in search for a new competitive edge. <br> | |||
<br> | |||
Whilst for many companies successful innovation relied on both on idea development and successful implementation, the component of these that was considered key in that it provided the distinct competitive edge, was the capture of the right ideas, i.e. having the right concept to start with. And so in the early years, open innovation models also concentrated on the idea capture interface. In particular, the evolution of two common structural elements prevailed to support the effective capture of ideas: the in-house touch point and the external network links. Taken in combination, these elements formed the surface of the company the interface between the world and the business. The development of the in-house touch point typically involved the creation of new internal positions, filled by cross-functional, highly motivated and connected people. Importantly, these fringe operators were new blood, and so also helped to break the deep rooted internal culture barrier from previous R&D structures. The team was designed specifically to act as a living interface for the company and promote the open-source innovation concept. Aside from being the touch point for pulling new ideas from outside sources, two critical roles were in completing the initial idea merit assessment and efficiently organising the multitude of ideas that were cropping up from the global think tank. The external network links were not extensively developed by companies during this period, but generally involved establishment of several key network links, as facilitated by consulting companies. These consultants specialised in linking up companies with government, university and private research centres. With the initial spread of the open innovation model through companies, so to these consulting groups began to cross industries and countries. <br> | |||
<br> | |||
During 2015-2020, a wave of copycat open-innovation models followed. Due mainly to the success demonstrated by big-brand players, and the receptive public environment, companies which had previously stuck to traditional R&D models were rethinking their strategy. Mounting financial regulation in the wake of the financial crisis and growing environmental regulations were also putting pressure on company bottom lines. In the face of these additional costs, companies needed to look at innovative ways to remain competitive, and were more and more turning towards cutting edge innovation models. The onslaught of open-innovation models buoyed the industry and led to the development of the next generation of idea capture systems. Again, this centred on two focal points: the companys in-house touch point and the external network links. As the open innovation model took a larger hold, so too did the need for company technology interface experts. This precipitated a trend of new course content and degree specialisations in both management schools and universities to cater for demand of the new job classification. In the space created by companies seeking a network of external experts, consulting groups were aggressively seeking out and enlisting on their network database all newly retired industry experts. Further, in this external link space, growing demand on consultancies to provide the perfect matched link for companies to the outside innovation world led consultancies to implement on-line platforms. This meant a larger reach to companies, and faster network link service. Amongst this, larger consultancies dominated in brand and a reinforcing cycle of company to network connection solidified these consultancies as the preferred players in the network linking service. Alongside this, freeware connection services, run by public forum and interest groups emerged; these allowed experts to self-list, and companies to self-channel their desired network. In the first few years, the success of these independent free linking services was limited, mainly due to concerns from companies as to the validity of expert claims and robustness of their client and university database. <br> | |||
<br> | |||
The early 2020s brought a slight twist to the structure of the prevalent open-innovation model. In companies effort to adopt the most efficient idea capture system which was not only networked but flexible companies did away with the consultant interface model. This was understandable given the extra cost but also due to the rigid nature of the typical consultant services, and the rise of the independent free networking services. In companies drive to be most competitive through reaching the maximum and most diversified group of innovation experts, company IT platforms evolved to create a dynamic online network link to innovation network services. This streamlined system, allowed both a faster response time to company issues and a streamlined and organised response of ideas. For example, company personnel were able to present the particular problem statement through this online interface, and innovation experts are drawn automatically and appropriately to the online forum. The resultant innovation system was further reaching, cheaper and more efficient. Notably during this period, additional environmental regulation was putting extreme pressure on carbon related supply chain costs, forcing companies to seek innovative ways through their open innovation networks to ease the cost burden. Countries such as the US are particularly forced to lead this charge, as domestic transportation and import related carbon transport charges escalate. Once again, the US leads the open innovation world, with Japan and Singapore closely following suit, in their ties to import and export related trade. | |||
Elsewhere in the innovation industry, the traditional venture capital mechanisms, ever present in countries such as the US, had lessened. Entrepreneurs were draw to the open and accessible company innovation networks as a source of problems to solve, concepts to test or even reputation to be gleaned through association with the big company names. At this same time, and complementing the switch of some entrepreneurs to the company innovation scene, social networks and the level of people connectivity continued to expand. Specifically, this social network took on a new role in the innovation world of the online company innovation platforms: innovation ideas proffered by individuals or groups of individuals through the online idea capture platform were campaigned for company acceptance. In this respect, individual ideas presented to the network were also open for improvement. This enhanced the ultimate quality of the idea delivered the company, and presented a forum for which groups could vote and promote their merit of their own ideas. This promotional draw was not without further incentives from the company, and so companies had to offer more than the typical monetary and name sake reward to successful idea contributors: it had to redefine its reward system. Creative and open ways were the trend for finding the optimal reward solution and fit for purpose and flexible rewards were invented, approved and applied to each company challenge, as released. <br> | |||
<br> | |||
From 2025, with efficient and mature idea capture the norm from open innovation platforms, companies looked for new ways to improve their innovation models. The (until then) traditional company in-house project implementation systems needed a shake up. Companies had concentrated know-how and effort on idea capture and concept-test to such an extent that focus on rapid in-house execution of the commercial innovation fell somewhat to the wayside. In continuing with the progress on open innovation, companies looked for new ways to use open innovation concepts as a means to streamline project execution. It was a matter of connecting mature idea capture with company execution capabilities. At a detriment to the open innovation concept, and a deterrent to involvement of venture capitalists (who enjoyed seeing projects through to completion), companies turned to a previously underutilised source of implementation innovation: retired industry experts. These experts had the full wealth of project implementation experience and were most adept at looking for holes in company innovation models and searching for more efficient ways to implement the ideas. The pool of retired expertise had continued to grow over the remaining decades and with it grew the willingness of retirees to engage particularly with the lure of additional rewards at the end of their already impressive careers. This precipitated an unusual trend in that subject matter experts, either unhappy or undervalued in their own companies, elected to early retirement, to join the pool of experts online engaging in current innovation projects. This was the ultimate step for companies to ensure not only effective capture of mature ideas and but efficient execution of them, and cemented the position of the open innovation company model for future use. <br> | |||
<br> | |||
<br> | |||
[[Future of Innovation Main Page]] | |||