Comments on: 10 common Open Innovation mistakes http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/ Learning how to create Market Breakthrough Products through targeted Open Innovation and Networking Sat, 12 Mar 2011 05:21:30 +0200 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Efried http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-884 Efried Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:36:00 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-884 Hi, I wonder how the economic crisis influences those innovation models.There should be now much more focus on avoiding formation of economic bubbles. Incentives for sustainable innovation may be that the external innovators are working on a royalty free basis- and there should be copyleft on innovation which benefits society. may be the state should own strategic patents? What do you think? cheers Hi,
I wonder how the economic crisis influences those innovation models.There should be now much more focus on avoiding formation of economic bubbles. Incentives for sustainable innovation may be that the external innovators are working on a royalty free basis- and there should be copyleft on innovation which benefits society. may be the state should own strategic patents?
What do you think?
cheers

]]> By: lavanya http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-588 lavanya Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:51:37 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-588 i really liked your blog. first time visitor, corporate slave trying to stop myself from turning into a middle mgmt soul sucker from idea-death-land. will be coming back for more. simple style, real depth, broad insights. good work! i really liked your blog. first time visitor, corporate slave trying to stop myself from turning into a middle mgmt soul sucker from idea-death-land.
will be coming back for more. simple style, real depth, broad insights. good work!

]]> By: Maxine J Horn http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-555 Maxine J Horn Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:28:18 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-555 Hello John - just me and you in our mutual fan club then? I have just published the report I mentioned in a previous email - its called Delivering the Innovation Dream and is concerned with increasing competition between funded UK Universities and the private sector. I'd be interested in your feedback on it? http://www.britishdesigninnovation.org/index.php?page=newlook/research Hello John – just me and you in our mutual fan club then?

I have just published the report I mentioned in a previous email – its called Delivering the Innovation Dream and is concerned with increasing competition between funded UK Universities and the private sector.

I’d be interested in your feedback on it?

http://www.britishdesigninnovation.org/index.php?page=newlook/research

]]> By: Maxine J Horn http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-549 Maxine J Horn Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:13:14 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-549 Hi John Yes I agree with you - sharing the risk appeals to brand owners and VC's - sharing the profits they are less comfortable with. We run Open Innovation Challenges (OIC) - which is designed with IP protection for both parties (corporates and originators) built in. This worked well for P & G when we ran one for them last year (smiley face) until it became obvious (Originators owned IP until a deal was negotiated), that some of the exceptionally good and potentially highly lucrative innovation breakthrough that emerged would result in P & G having to share a bit of their profit(less smiley face). Real principles of mutuality exist in written format and in our (and others I am sure)OIC process and its terms and conditions - it is a question of acceptance of those terms of mutuality by the corporates and VC's - that is the real challenge Maxine PS: Just got your linked in invite so I'll see you in there Hi John
Yes I agree with you – sharing the risk appeals to brand owners and VC’s – sharing the profits they are less comfortable with.
We run Open Innovation Challenges (OIC) – which is designed with IP protection for both parties (corporates and originators) built in. This worked well for P & G when we ran one for them last year (smiley face) until it became obvious (Originators owned IP until a deal was negotiated), that some of the exceptionally good and potentially highly lucrative innovation breakthrough that emerged would result in P & G having to share a bit of their profit(less smiley face).

Real principles of mutuality exist in written format and in our (and others I am sure)OIC process and its terms and conditions – it is a question of acceptance of those terms of mutuality by the corporates and VC’s – that is the real challenge

Maxine

PS: Just got your linked in invite so I’ll see you in there

]]> By: john http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-548 john Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:29:09 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-548 Hi Maxine, thank you very much for your comments. I really like the way you describe the Open Landscape with "thinkers and linkers" vs "we think". I think you've also put your finger on a key challenge with Breakthrough Open Innovation - how do the thinkers get a just reward for their input. Go beneath the surface and talk to people seeking to act as "thinkers" and you qucikly encouter a real issue around trust in much of today's Open Innovation. A real challenge in Open Innovation of the future is how to establish a real principle of Mutuality. John Hi Maxine, thank you very much for your comments. I really like the way you describe the Open Landscape with “thinkers and linkers” vs “we think”. I think you’ve also put your finger on a key challenge with Breakthrough Open Innovation – how do the thinkers get a just reward for their input. Go beneath the surface and talk to people seeking to act as “thinkers” and you qucikly encouter a real issue around trust in much of today’s Open Innovation. A real challenge in Open Innovation of the future is how to establish a real principle of Mutuality. John

]]> By: Maxine J Horn http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/27/10-common-open-innovation-mistakes/#comment-547 Maxine J Horn Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:10:17 +0000 http://www.cocatalyst.com/blog/?p=307#comment-547 Hi, I think the 10 points you have made are very valid. There are reasons why problems have arisen with the open innovation model. Open Innovation, in recent years, has been ambushed by those who view it as a purely customer-led feedback and ideas resource feeding into corporate R&D departments, an approach that is only a more informed consumer research platform. True Open Innovation is played out between Thinkers and Linkers operating in the professional innovation space. The professional front-end led Open Innovation model operated by ‘paid to think’ problem-solvers requires tighter IP terms and a more equitable division of the profit pie. Companies who seek to supplement their internal R&D innovation with external innovation are currently less comfortable with this shared-risk-and-reward model. However this is a crucial issue if strategic innovation decision-makers are to understand the critical role user-centered strategic designers (and scientists) play in the professional open innovation model. It’s a bit dated (early 2008) but here’s a link to an article I wrote on that subject. http://www.britishdesigninnovation.org/index.php?page=newsservice/view&news_id=5409 The strategic innovation model is now moving on. The new model is one that acknowledges ‘division of labour’ – is fast gaining acceptance as the new innovation model in the USA. It concurs with the BDI operating principles that no product, service, process or business proposition ever came to market without the core expertise of several key parties. Furthermore, it supports the division of labour between the 'Thinkers and Linkers'. Strategic designers and scientists alike are, generally speaking, the problem-solving creative Thinkers. They have little appetite for the processes and responsibilities of exploitation, preferring to leave that to the Linkers skilled in the business-driven disciplines: finance, IP valuation, deal negotiation and so forth. Engineers and technologists often bridge the Thinkers and Linkers. Hi, I think the 10 points you have made are very valid. There are reasons why problems have arisen with the open innovation model.

Open Innovation, in recent years, has been ambushed by those who view it as a purely customer-led feedback and ideas resource feeding into corporate R&D departments, an approach that is only a more informed consumer research platform.
True Open Innovation is played out between Thinkers and Linkers operating in the professional innovation space.
The professional front-end led Open Innovation model operated by ‘paid to think’ problem-solvers requires tighter IP terms and a more equitable division of the profit pie.

Companies who seek to supplement their internal R&D innovation with external innovation are currently less comfortable with this shared-risk-and-reward model.

However this is a crucial issue if strategic innovation decision-makers are to understand the critical role user-centered strategic designers (and scientists) play in the professional open innovation model.

It’s a bit dated (early 2008) but here’s a link to an article I wrote on that subject.

http://www.britishdesigninnovation.org/index.php?page=newsservice/view&news_id=5409

The strategic innovation model is now moving on. The new model is one that acknowledges ‘division of labour’ – is fast gaining acceptance as the new innovation model in the USA. It concurs with the BDI operating principles that no product, service, process or business proposition ever came to market without the core expertise of several key parties.
Furthermore, it supports the division of labour between the ‘Thinkers and Linkers’.
Strategic designers and scientists alike are, generally speaking, the problem-solving creative Thinkers. They have little appetite for the processes and responsibilities of exploitation, preferring to leave that to the Linkers skilled in the business-driven disciplines: finance, IP valuation, deal negotiation and so forth. Engineers and technologists often bridge the Thinkers and Linkers.

]]>