Difference between revisions of "Scenario 3 - Open Big Brand World"

From ScenarioThinking
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
<b>5 words define this world:</b><br>
* Brand leverage<br>
* Social platforms <br>
* Company lead <br>
* Low risk <br>
* Open innovation <br><br>
<b>2030 - State of the world</b><br><br>
In 2030, big companies companies with heavy brands have redefined the world of innovation.  Companies realised that to succeed, low-risk open innovation would only work at scale if exponential incrementalism could be adopted:  let us consider this global think tank, this idea generating machine and make it exponential!  Let it reach and attract the masses of good ideas, of the right ideas.  Let it be organised.  What did the companies need?  They needed the platform for which to efficiently capture, organise and implement the ideas.  They took crowd-sourcing and coupled it with the world of social media as its platform.  They integrated open innovation in the very fabric of their organisations and created the incentive system to match.  In this world, companies are transparent and leverage their brand strength to pave the creative way to a more competitive future. <br>
==2010 - 2015==
In <b>2010</b>, Proctor & Gamble Co (P&G) had been successful in implementing a new company innovation process and transforming 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 frequently discussed in corporate board rooms across the globe.  What made it particularly attractive was the ability for bigger companies to adopt a scalable low-risk innovation model.  How were they doing it? The key ingredient for these companies was to leverage their brand to attract and plug into the collective brains of the world.  The end result was an extensive innovation network of external expertise to draw ideas for subsequent in-house development.  <br>
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, India and America were most receptive to trialling the new innovation model at scale and were first off the blocks in extensively adopting the new model in search for a new competitive edge. <br>
Concurrently, the closed innovation model started to falter.  Companies such as Google continued to battle legal challenges in the world of patents.  Frustrated by the growing tide of infringements and limitations of their largely closed innovation models, change was coming.  Big steps from Apple in publicizing the interface to their i-Phone operating system accelerated adoption and bolstered sales.  A whopping $10M prize from Google was offered to the winning application developed for their open-source Android platform.  In the face of such increased competition, closed innovation companies such as Nokia were reconsidering their innovation engines and looking to open up to external groups and software developers.  Elsewhere, in the Pharma space, where traditional IP rights rule, growing product development costs were also forcing change.  Pharma companies were wary of the first movers dilemma in this respect, as it was considered a risk to be first to open up their IP and test the open innovation model.  However, some companies, such as Eli Lilly, began to embrace open innovation platforms, and offered partial but sufficient IP disclosure, to successfully lure external parties for product development.    <br>
<br>
<br>
In <b>2010</b>, Proctor & Gamble Co (P&G) had been successful in inventing a new company innovation and transformed their research and development model to such an extent that more than half of the .  open innovation model was widely known and openly discussed in company strategy discussions.  The new method leveraged the strength of their brand, embraced the of the 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>
Whilst for many companies successful open 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 .  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 .  Taken in combination, these elements of the the world and the business. <br>
<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, , 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 and the external the of the and the business. <br>
The development of the inthe creation of new internal positions, filled by cross-functional, highly motivated and connected people.  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 for pulling new ideas from outside sources, the team had three critical roles: 1) designing the incentive scheme to appropriately reward budding external innovators; 2) efficiently organising the multitude of ideas that were cropping up from the global think tank; and 3) completing the initial idea merit assessment.   <br>
<br>
<br>
The involved the creation of new internal positions, filled by cross-functional, highly motivated and connected people.  were 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 and efficiently organising the multitude of ideas that were cropping up from the global think tank.   <br>
The 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.  They were adept at tapping the right knowledge network and helping the company to leverage their brand to create meaningful open innovation networks. With the initial spread of the open innovation model through companies, so to these consulting groups began to cross industries and countries. <br>
<br>
==2015 - 2020==
, 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>
During <b>2015-2020</b>, a wave of copycat open-innovation models followed.  With the rising receptiveness of the public environment to the open innovation world and the successful adoption of the open innovation model by several big brand players, companies with traditional R&D models were rethinking their innovation 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 open 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, and .  <br>
<br>
In-house, as the open innovation models took a larger hold, so too did the need for experienced company interface personnel: the .  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 ensuring that the right level of talent and innovation efforts were drawn from their networks, companies improved existing monetary reward schemes to include non-monetary incentives:  these took the form of acclaim based rewards (e.g. new to the WHO if development of this drug is successful). <br>
During <b>2015-2020</b>, a wave of copycat open-innovation models followed.  With the rising receptiveness of the public environment to the open innovation world and the successful adoption of the open innovation model by several big brand players, companies with traditional R&D models were rethinking their innovation 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 open innovation models.  The onslaught of open-innovation models buoyed the industry and led to the development of the next generation of idea capture systems.  inand the .   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.
 
<br>
==2020 - 2025==
through their open innovation .  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.  
e-innovation system was further reaching, cheaper and more efficient. As these innovation e-platforms proliferated through the open innovation world, standardisation was inevitable.  This had two benefits:  it allowed companies to access cheaper and easy to manage innovation platforms, and the public innovation network was more familiar with the typical e-innovation platforms and could therefore better channel their innovation energies.   <br>
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 .  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 and flexible rewards were invented, approved and applied to each company challenge, as released.   <br>
Notably during this period, companies from the US and India lead the way in open innovation , were a larger player in the global innovation space and attracted talent from further afield than did their competitors in many other countries. to set the benchmark for open innovation excellence, expanding on their already global network of expertise to derive the maximum value from their open innovation model. <br>
<br>
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 .  In the the ultimate quality of the idea delivered the company, and presented a forum for which groups could vote and , approved and applied to each company challenge, as released.    <br>
From <b>2025</b>, 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) <br>
==2025 - 2030==
From <b>2025</b>, with efficient and mature idea capture the norm from open innovation platforms, companies looked for new ways to improve their innovation models.  Two things happened:  the social network interface evolved and the in-house innovation implementation was overhauled.  <br>
. <br>
Also?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[[Future of Innovation Main Page]]
[[Future of Innovation Main Page]]

Revision as of 20:20, 8 September 2010

Retrieved from "https://www.scenariothinking.org/index.php?title=Scenario_3_-_Open_Big_Brand_World&oldid=187498"