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

Motivation
Share assets Protect assets

 Well-known dilemmas No authority Slow convergence
in innovation Free commitment No work division
Multiple stakeholder Conflict of interests
 In case of collective innovation: Multiple perspective Shared vision
– Some dilemmas are reduced: larger and Take risk Explore Exploit Reduce Risk
cheaper access to knowledge and ideas… Create Knowledge Reuse Knowledge
– A lot of new dilemmas emerge!
Management Dimension
Managers of collective
 Recent insights in the literature suggest that innovation?
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)
 Managing for solving the dilemmas of collective innovation: actors, activities, methods?


Collective innovation manager?

State of the art
Research Questions:
 Research has focused on the innovation leader (“focal firm”) who
makes use of external resources for his own goals… (Elmquist,
Fredberg, Olilla 2009)
1. Where and how are
 Recent results have underlined that these “heroes of open these managers of
innovation” actually rely on organized milieux, structures and collective innovation
processes: doing this?
– First approaches have studied open innovation market 2. What are the key
intermediaries (Innocentive, Ninesigma,…) (Diener & Piller 2010) management areas to
– These works underlined the limits of pure brokering: limited create conditions for
cooperation, knowledge transfer rather than knowledge creation, for collective
limited exploration (Sieg et al. 2010, Birkinshaw 2011) innovation initiatives?

– Some works described more complex innovative milieux, 3. How can we help
collaborative ecosystems, platforms and colleges (Gawer 2009, Le collective innovation
Masson et al. 2011) that support the activities of open innovators managers to
visualize/manage
 Hence there might be managers of collective innovation that are these areas?
more than pure brokers... But their role, management areas and
methods are largely hidden (research gap)


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

Research Background and Method

Management
Exploration Centralized
Dimensions vs. Exploitation vs. Decentralized

Innovation
Organization
strategy

Protecting Conflicting
vs. Revealing vs. Collective
Simultaneous
IP Interests/
Solve?
management Goals

Governance Focus

Hierarchical Company
vs. Autonomous vs. Network


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

Research Background and Method
Management Dimensions
Exploration Centralized
vs. Exploitation vs. Decentralized Four Case Studies to help “visualize” the
Innovation
strategy
Organization invisible collective innovation manager
Protecting Conflicting
vs. Revealing vs. Collective
Simultaneous
IP Interests/
Solve?
management Goals

Governance Focus

Hierarchical Company
vs. Autonomous vs. Network

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


1. Our case findings support the assumption that collective innovation managers
apply simultaneous solves in several management dimensions
Case Study Results (Siemens)
Simultaneous
Solve1)
 Centralized: Structures, guidelines,
processes and tools
Organization  Decentralized: Responsible for
running collective innovation
initiatives
 Protecting: Intellectual property is
systematically secured in patents
IP Management  Revealing: Unused IP and
technologies are commercialized
via licenses and Spin-outs

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


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


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

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
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)

Identifying complementary actors who
2 have the knowledge and/or skills that are
currently lacking
Identifying missing knowledge, and interesting concepts to develop
Mobilizing existing
1 knowledge in a different 3&4 +
+
concept is attainable for Launching collaborative workshops with relevant actors to fill the
established firms knowledge gaps and to explore interesting unexplored concepts


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

Initial situation
Agrosystem
Local
That produces food for Auth.
humans
NGO
That provides food of Research
good quality
Center
Farm
Maximizing yields Preserving natural
equilibria
Coop
Only with profitable With areas of regulations Farm
crops (grasslands)
Farm
Using chemicals, Using ecosystem Farm
fertilizers… services

Initial situation: no Few relationships
common ground between stakeholders


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

Concepts Knowledge
List of attributes from a productive and from an ecological
perspective:
Common/cleaving attributes
A productive agrosystem that
preserves natural equilibria Potential values associated to
these attributes
Functions having an Functions having a
Without With individual potential value collective potential value
grassland grasslands
Design parameters i.e. reduce the use of
i.e. use fertilizers to
Frequent No mowing in (DP) activated at an herbicides to preserve
No mowing increase grassland yields
mowing Summer individual level groundwater

i.e. coordinate grassland i.e. coordinate grassland
DP activated at a
Use of Use of Reduced No use of localization to reduce localization to maximize
collective level
herbicides herbic. herbic. herbicides individual costs for farmers biological control

Without Without With
localization of localization localization
grasslands

Visualize opportunities for open innovation
that overcome the initial dilemma


2. Building on the identified simultaneous solves, we were able to identify four
key management areas for collective innovation initiatives
Key Management Areas
Centralized vs.
decentralized
Media
organization
Infrastructure
How can we find
the relevant people
and through what
channels/tools?
Interdepen-
Issue and
dencies
opportunties Collective
Innovation How can we go
Exploitation vs. How can we use
Management from conflicting Conflicting vs.
exploration what we know to
interests to
strategy open the box? collective
collective goals?
Focus interests/goals
How can we
create a
legitimate place
for open Company vs.
innovation? network
focus


Uncover an (unexpected) collective innovation management…

Key Management Areas More than incentives…
…Commit the right people
Media to contribute to collective
Infrastructure innovation
Before sharing
How can we find
knowledge …
the relevant people
…Share an
and through what
agenda of channels/tools?
open issues Interdepen-
Issue and
dencies
Innovation How can we go
How can we use
Management from conflicting Don’t avoid
what we know to
interests to conflicts, don’t
open the box?
collective goals? look for trade
Focus
offs…
How can we …Deal with
Not a shared vision! create a
conflicts in a
A legitimate place for collective legitimate place
creative way
innovation for open
innovation?


… with relevant visualization techniques

Key Management Areas More than incentives…
…Commit the right people
Media to contribute to collective
Infrastructure innovation
Before sharing
How can we find Visualize the emerging, relevant
knowledge …
the relevant people networks
…Share an
and through what
agenda of channels/tools?
open issues Interdepen-
Issue and
dencies
Visualize the Innovation How can we go
How can we use
unknown Management from conflicting Don’t avoid
what we know to
interests to conflicts, don’t
open the box?
collective goals? look for trade
Focus
offs…
How can we …Deal with
Not a shared vision! create a
conflicts in a
A legitimate place for collective legitimate place
creative way
innovation for open
innovation?
Visualize
Visualize the legitimate place
interdependencies


3. A workshop concept to help visualizing and managing each of the 4 key
management areas
Visualization Workshops
Visualize the opportunity WORKSHOP STRUCTURE
1 space
Objectives Conclusion
Media Infrastructure

How can we find the
relevant people and
through what
channels/tools?

Visualize the infrastructure Issue and
opportunties Interdependencies

2 (and performance) How can we
use what we
Collective
Innovation
Management
How can we go from
conflicting interests to
know to open collective goals?
the box?
Focus

How can we
create a
legitimate place
for open
Visualize conflicts and innovation?

3 interdependencies
Diagnosis technique (Tutorial for)
(visualization) Practical application

Visualize the nature of
4 collective innovation


Workshop – Visualizing the Unknown

1) Purpose 6) Conclusion
 Unveiling innovation strategies dilemmas “exploration vs. exploitation”  Visualizing unknown paths of innovation created at a collective level can help an
 Can a innovation lock-in situation be diagnosed, and is it possible to objectify the gap open innovation manager in solving conflicting situations.
between expected innovations and the ones that are currently attainable by existing
innovation capabilities ?

2) Case study 5) Tutorial for an open innovation manager
 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


Workshop
Visualizing the Communication Infrastructure (Performance)
1. Scope Definition 4. Analysis and Conclusions Workshop Tutorial
Platform
 1. Scope

a) Define relevant user
attributes for
Origin Ideas Evaluation/Rating quantitative analyses
(e.g., region, age,
Idea contributors with
department etc.)
Database
differentiating attributes b) Define quality measure
(e.g., geography, age, Stars „Untapped“
sector, department etc.) (e.g., user rating,
Stars
degree of novelty,
Who contributes, How good are feasibility, business
how much? the contributions?
(Quality) Quantity Quality benefit)
(Quantity)
2. Heat Maps
a) Extract data and
2. Visualization I: Heat Maps calculate distribution of
Number of Ideas by Region 3. Visualisation II: Integrated Tree Map ideas for each selected
(Attribute 2)
user attribute
b) Draw heat maps
Max. 3. Integrated Tree Map
Attribute
Number of Ideas by Age 1
a) Rank attributes and
140 (Attribute 1) associated categories
120 Max. by idea concentration
100 high Attribute
2
(maxmax top left)
80 medium
60 low b) Draw tree map
40
Attribute
4. Quantity vs. Quality
20 3
a) Identify high quality
0
< 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 > 55
ideas and map into tree
b) Derive conclusions
26 July 2012
Martin Wiener; Martin Stötzel

Workshop
Visualize Interdependences
1) Initial goal 6) Conclusion
 Overcome conflicting objectives e.g. “farming production vs. environment  Visualizing interdependences between stakeholders and new potential values created
protection” at a collective level can help an open innovation manager in solving conflicting
situations.
 Is it possible to transform a conflicting object into an asset source of collective
innovation? 5) Tutorial for an open innovation manager
2) Case study 3° Represent existing design paths, and 1° Diagnose the conflict: Specify the
propose intermediary paths that create a attributes (design parameters,
 A French cereal plain : How to combine crop production & environment protection (as
common ground between actors functions) of the conflicting object
intensive agricultural practices are threatening the environment)
2° Identify the potential values of
 A solution proposed by ecologists is to reintroduce grasslands in the agrosystem to cleaving attributes + Find new
preserve natural equilibria DP1 DP2a
attributes with potential values
DP3
a
 Problem: it is a conflicting solution. Grasslands are less profitable than crops, so this
solution triggers high individual costs for farmers DP1 4° Visualize interdependences between
DP2b
b actors created by the new solutions
proposed, and stimulate innovative
3)Initial diagnosis
collaboration
 Stakeholders (farmers, naturalists…) have divergent interests in rural
areas (agrosystems): visualize convergences and divergences
4) How can an OI manager solve the dilemma?
Agrosystem
(Concepts) List of attributes from a productive and (Knowledge)
That produces food
from an ecological perspective:
for humans Common/cleaving attributes
Consensual A productive agrosystem that Potential values associated to
That provides food of attributes preserves natural equilibria these attributes
good quality
Functions having an Functions having a
Without With individual potential value collective potential
value
Maximizing Preserving natural grassland grasslands
yields equilibria Design parameters i.e. use fertilizers to i.e. reduce the use of
(DP) activated at an increase grassland yields herbicides to preserve
Cleaving Frequent No mowing individual level groundwater
No mowing Individual innovation
attributes With areas of mowing in Summer
Only with profitable DP activated at a i.e. coordinate grassland i.e. coordinate grassland
crops regulations (grasslands) collective level localization to reduce localization to maximize
Use of Use of Reduced No use of individual costs for biological control
herbicides herbic. herbic. herbicides farmers
Using chemicals, Using ecosystem
fertilizers… services Without With Open
Without
localization localization localization innovation
of grasslands

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

26 July 2012
E. Berthet, B. Segrestin

Workshop – Creating Legitimacy in Open Innovation
How can
we create a
legitimate Diagnosis
place for 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
open
knowledge and generate ideas.
innovation?

1.Conduct interviews with a Trust
4. Identify and emphasize
Offices
subset of involved key people: critical manifestations of Relations
 What are the tensions that they legitimacy in the hips with Logo
others
experience between the home open innovation
organization and the arena? Career OI Loyalty
 What are the specific dilemmas Arena collaboration Business SAFER
Academic
legiti-
cards papers
involved in managing these tensions? macy

Knowledge
Shared
Analyze Generation Con-
tracts
Experi-
ences
Office
2.Define Manifest Solution key

 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?
3. Characterize the type of higher level solutions needed re-
Trust
solve the dilemmas in the open innovation collaboration
Higher level solution Example
Higher level solutions to be
developed in open dialogues
between stakeholders Home Collective
Career Loyalty organization effort
Solutions Risks viewpoint viewpoint
The dilemmas are partly solved by creating If the process of creating legitimacy is
legitimacy on the project level, but also on not open, you end up in a game like
a higher level, where management plays Knowledge
situation where no joint development
an important role generation Career
actually takes place.
Arrange dialogue Resolve dilemmas


Conclusion

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

Market-based models of open innovation: Emerging model of collective innovation
brokers, planning & optimisation management: shaping the unknown
Known interests, known
Discover interests, values,
If the new competences, known
techniques, stakeholders… If the new
changes the futures…
changes the
game 
game 
management
Visualize the unknown, management
limits the new
Incentives, knowledge and creative use of conflict, broadens the
to stabilize the networks expansion,
value sharing = unknown!
game legitimate cooperative
optimisation & planning
place

 … in which “visualizing the invisible” (the unknown) is critical
 Thanks to PPF support, this research opens a promising research program, with a new
research network!

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)

Team Workshops Gothenburg Munich
22 Mar 2011 24 Oct 2011
1. Four reference cases: identify critical dilemmas,
techniques to solve them, efficiency of these
Kick-off 1 Case studies Final
techniques
presentation
2. Visualization Management Techniques of the
OI manager (building the OI square):
a) Visualize the unknown
b) Visualize interdependencies
c) Visualize communication networks Individual Case Studies
d) Visualize an identity
3. A workable format to help OI managers: “how
do you design your own OI leader” Nuremberg Paris Paris
a) Interactive, based on experiences 15 Dec 2010 30 Jun 2011 15 Sep 2011
b) Cumulative
c) Self evaluation: what kind of dilemma 1 Case studies 1 Case studies 2 Visualization
do you solve.
2 Visualization 3 OI Manager


Ambidexterity is an established theme in management research
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


Prior research indicates that successful collective innovators apply
contradicting approaches simultaneously for managing their
innovation activities
Motivation
Simultaneous Solve: Research Questions:

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

Examples: 1. Where and how are they doing
EXPLOITATION EXPLORATION this?
2. What are the key management
areas for collective innovation
initiatives?
3. How can we help collective
PROTECTING REVEALING innovators to visualize/manage
these areas?


SAFER Context

170 persons hold keys to SAFER office Autoliv
CHALMERS Epsilon
• 50% from Chalmers, 50% from other partners Gothenburg university Folksam
SP Saab
• ca 40 PhD students (40 % industrial) SMW
VTI
• 45 full time in SAFER TÖI Scan. Auto. Suppl.
Viktoria institute Scania
Imego AB Telia Sonera
Sicomp AB Volvo CC
Focus areas Volvo Group
LSP
 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

Pre-crash Crash Post-crash
Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

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 Trade-off:
reconcile contradicting approaches for Management Dimension
managing their innovation activities
(“Simultaneous Solve”), but…

1. How are they doing this?
2. What are the “hidden/invisible” Simultaneous Solve:
variables (from a leadership, Management Dimension
governance, process, and IT tool
perspective) enabling them to resolve
the resulting dilemmas?
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
*)

“Service
provider”
Siemens CTO OI

Industry Energy Healthcare

Corporate Functions (cross-sector)
Corporate
Technology (CTO)
Open
Innovation
CTO OI

*) Organization as of 04/2011 Open Innovation Activities Framework (by Siemens CTO OI)


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. “There is hard work to be
Lackner done in opening doors
while maintaining some
• Interview with Open
control, (…)”
Innovation Specialist Dr. Lackner

OPERATING BUSINESS UNITS

Innovation Hubs Siemens Student Award Smart Grid Contest, 2011 Sustainability Idea Technology
Contest (internal), Middle-East (Dubai), Contest (internal), 2010 Accelerators; Out-
2011 2011 licensing, spin-outs


Our findings support first indications from prior literature that the
simultaneous solve is applied in OI Management
Case Study Findings (1/2)
SIMULTANEOUS
MGT. DIMENSION FINDINGS SOLVE 1)
 The central open innovation unit develops structures and concepts, identifies
technical solutions and solution providers, advertises the concepts across the
Organization 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.

• Open innovation initiatives are neither demanded top-down from the
management, nor initiated autonomously by the internal or external
Governance
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)
SIMULTANEOUS
MGT. DIMENSION FINDINGS SOLVE 1)
 IP protection is a well established practice because IP has always been vital for
Siemens business success in competitive markets
IP Management  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

• Siemens heavily relies on intrinsic motivation. Receiving attention and
feedback in virtual discussions with other participants seems to provide a
Motivation
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 • Innovation Strategy (exploration vs. exploitation) has not been discussed as
Strategy and a management dimension, in the conducted case interviews ?
other • Also, we could not yet identify additional management dimensions relevant
for Open Innovation management
dimensions

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 Attributes of participants
• Intensity of • Specific role-profiles of participants
communication • Technical / educational background of
Measure • Number of idea & participants
ment proposals • Time participants spend in the network
(KPIs) • Selected ideas / • Geographical proximity
solutions
• Belonging to the same business unit / area
• Business benefit
• ...
• ...

Communication Infrastructure Performance Evaluation 1. Nodes = Participants
2. Arcs = Collaboration
3. Centricity = Performance
4. Colours = Attributes


Appendix


28 th June 2011
Paris, Pribilla group

Resolving dilemmas in collective innovation
The I-Care case

Marine AGOGUE
CGS, MINES ParisTech
F-75 272 Paris, France
Tel: +33 1 40 51 9201
Mail: magogue@ensmp.fr,

Diagnosing exploration / exploitation dilemmas

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

expected explorations

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
Data : workshop analysis, interviews of firms, questionnaire (22 responses)
Marine Agogué – MINES ParisTech

Visualizing the unknown to overcome dilemmas

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

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)

Identifying complementary
2 actors who have the knowledge
and/or skills that are currently
3&4 lacking
1
Mobilizing existing knowledge in a Identifying missing knowledge, and interesting concepts to develop
different concept is attainable for +
established firms Launching collaborative workshops with relevant actors to fill the
knowledge gapsand to explore interesting unexplored concepts

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

C-K referential : A tool that requires to mobilize innovative design C-K
theory and its formalisms *
STEP 1
Gather classical knowledge (experts) &
3 3 list all the current projects

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

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

STEP 4 & 5
Expand the knowledge and concept
spaces until no more expertise or project
seems out of the scope
5
6 5
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.Dilemmas inC-K design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design 19, 181-192. 4.
Resolving & Weil, B. (2009) Collective Innovation 43
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
Agrosystem
Local
That produces
Auth.
food for humans
NGO
That provides food
Research
of good quality Center

Farm
Maximizing Preserving natural
yields equilibria
Coop
With areas of Farm
Only with
profitable crops regulations (grasslands)
Farm

Using chemicals, Initial Using ecosystem
Farm
fertilizers… situation: no services
common Few relationships
ground between stakeholders
45 Resolving Dilemmas in Collective Innovation

Identify alternative ways to deal with the
dilemmas
(Concepts) List of attributes from a (Knowledge)
productive and from an
ecological perspective:
Common/cleaving attributes
A productive agrosystem that
Potential values associated to
preserves natural equilibria these attributes

Without With
Functions having Functions having
grassland grasslands an individual a collective
potential value potential value
Frequent No mowing in Design i.e. use fertilizers to i.e. reduce the use of
No mowing
mowing Summer increase grassland herbicides to
parameters (DP)
activated at an yields preserve groundwater
Use of Use of Reduced No use of individual level
herbicides herbic. herbic. herbicides

DP activated at a i.e. coordinate i.e. coordinate
Without collective level grassland localization grassland localization
Without With
localization of to reduce individual to maximize
localization localization
grasslands costs for farmers biological control

Visualize opportunities for open
innovation that overcome the initial
dilemma


Ex.
1) Visualize grassland design 2) Visualize
parameters Grasslan interdependencies
Watero
d Local
rg.
Auth.
With fodder Without fodder
production production NGO
Research
Frequent No mowing Center
mowing in Summer Loss of
harvest,
Pests
Farm
Use of No use Use of Reduce No use
herbicides of herb. herb. d herb. of herb. Coop
Farm
Without With Without With
Farm
Biological
localization localization localization localization control

Farm


Empty pattern

3° Represent existing design paths, and
propose intermediary paths that create a 1° Diagnose the conflict: Specify the attributes
common ground between actors (design parameters, functions) of the
conflicting object

2° Identify the potential values of cleaving
attributes + Find new attributes with
DP1a DP3 DP2a potential values

DP1b DP2b 4° Visualize interdependences
between actors created by the
new solutions proposed, and
stimulate innovative
collaboration


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

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

Quantitative Qualitative
Analyses Analyses

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)

140 Number of Ideas by Age (Attribute 1) Number of Ideas by Region (Attribute 2)
120 Max.
100 high
80 medium

60
low Max.

40
20
0
< 25 25 - 35 35 - 45 45 - 55 > 55

Tree Map: Number of Ideas by Attributes

Max- Attribute 1 600 300 100
Max

Attribute ... 400 200

Min-
Max
Attribute n 280 120 140 60

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)

Same
structure

„Untapped“
Stars
Stars

More ideas, Fewer ideas,
but lower but better Collective Innovation Manager:
quality quality Pay special attention to “untapped” stars and take corrective actions

resolving dilemmas in collective innovation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to resolving dilemmas in collective innovation (20)

More from coworkingsalzburg.com (15)

Recently uploaded (20)

resolving dilemmas in collective innovation