Red Garage Ventures - Corporate Innovation framework

Innovation framework

Franki Chamaki

Red Garage Ventures

Source IP only, IP and Talent or talent only?

Classified – Confidential -

Supported by internal/external communication (e.g. Newsletter, annual innovation festival, internal dashboard)

Governance (e.g. set up a cross-functional “Innovation Board” to drive innovation internally)

Internal & offline

Team brainstorm sessions (eg

inventium.com.au)

Internal & online

Internal crowdsourcing platform

(e.g.brightidea.com)

External & offline

Acquire early start-up venture (new IP)

Engage “innovation” external firms (ie Design

Thinking)

External & online

Run hackathon (e.g. GE Industrial

Hackathon)

Set up internal Design thinking teams (e.g. AMP,

Westpac)

Scout new IP (eg prescouter.com)

Sponsor third party R&D (i.e. University)

External hosted crowd sourcing hosted externally for

(e.g. edisonnation.com, kaggle.com ,

openideo.com, innocentive.com )

Internal hackathon (eg atlassian fedex

days)

Framed Problem Within Focus Area(s)

Define Focus Area(s) within Growth Agenda

Know Growth Agenda (Opportunities & Adjacencies)

Incremental innovation to Transformation innovation

Hosted internally crowdsource for externa

(e.g. pgconnectdevelop.com )

RED GARAGE VENTURES CORPORATE INNOVATION FRAMEWORK





Internal & offline


inventium.com.au)

Internal & online



External & offline



Thinking)

External & online


Hackathon)


Westpac)




(e.g. edisonnation.com, kaggle.com ,

openideo.com, innocentive.com )


days)





Hosted internally crowdsource for externa

(e.g. pgconnectdevelop.com )


70%

Horizon 1

Optimizing existing business model

20%

Horizon 2

Leverage existing business model in new

fields (and create a competitive advantage)

10%

Horizon 3

Explore a new business model




Internal & offline


inventium.com.au)

Internal & online



External & offline



Thinking)

External & online


Hackathon)


Westpac)




(e.g. kaggle.com , openideo.com,

innocentive.com )


days)





Hosted internally Crowdsourcing for

external(e.g.

pgconnectdevelop.com )


Considerations

• As Henry Chesbrough (who coined Open Innovation) in his 2003 book "Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology" argues companies cannot remain competitive with centralized, internal, R&D processes.

• He believes that companies can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology.

• This is the essence of RGV's Innovation framework





Internal & offline


inventium.com.au)

Internal & online



External & offline



Thinking)

External & online


Hackathon)


Westpac)





innocentive.com )


days)






external(e.g.



Considerations1. What's the problem? Need to have a 100% clear problem area. Circular Economy

is too board. Need to be specific and start with "How might we...." solve xxx. Apply Design Thinking and have the participants immerse in the problem.

2. How are you going to communicate: We need to communicate the problem along to the right groups and to help them understand what you like to be solved. We need to communicate objective of the hackathon (ie just sources ideas vs funding a startup), explain the judging criteria, explain IP treatment. This is an ongoing process which include pre, during and post event

3. How are you going to support the event? Need to have both right mix of Subject Matter Experts (ie Circular Economy experts in the define problem area) as well as "startup" folks supporting the team during the event and to facilitate and ensure they keep true to the problem at hand. They also help ensure they apply a "lean startup" thinking to quickly test and validate ideas.

4. How are you going to reward the winner(s)? What will the winners get? Access to funds, access to scale partner? Access to incubation services? All?

5. How are you going treat IP? Typically participants "own" the IP but have the option to sell % to get funding to grow

6. What happens after the event? How are you going nurture and incubate? Need to have a clearly defined "incubation" approach (erg first 3 month is business model validation, secure first customer, scale etc)

7. Clear judging criteria - communicate how you are going to judge. In ours we had:1. 25% - Innovation - show us how different unique your idea is!2. 25% - Execution - show us a prototype/demo/mock up!3. 25% - Customer Validation - show us you can secure a customer!4. 25% - Use of asset - show us how you leverage Coke asset/waste in your

idea





Internal & offline


inventium.com.au)

Internal & online



External & offline



Thinking)

External & online


Hackathon)


Westpac)





innocentive.com )


days)






external(e.g.



Integration morals

Source: https://timreview.ca/article/490

1. “Cross-Leverage” model: leaves the acquisition as a separate business unit, but merges the technology and people into the main company. Pro: operates as a separate "product line" but uses company's shared assets (i.e. marketing, R&D, distribution). Con: time lag to get things done as it now depended on shared resources

2. “New Bet” model turns an acquisition into a new, standalone business unit within the company to pursue a new market segment. Pro: standalone allow for full independence but leverages brand, customer base, and distribution assets

3. “Top Up” model breaks up the acquired entity into portfolio elements and consolidates it into the acquiring company. Pro: allows for full company integration quicker, filling gaps and more organic (reduce company shock). Con: May not take advantage of startups' IP to full potential as its watered down.

4. “Double Down” model consolidates both companies’ assets into the acquired company. Pro: works well if the startup's market distribution, brand, customer base, and leadership team are more effective. Pro: company cultural on both sides needs to be managed.


Hosted internally Crowdsourcing for external(e.g. pgconnectdevelop.com )

Site: hackdays.com.au Site: capitalpitch.com Site: slingshotters.com


Capital PitchHack Days Slingshot


RED GARAGE VENTURES HACKATHON PARTER ASSESSMENT

Pros• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…

Cons• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…• Xyx…

Unique selling point• Xyx…• Xyx…








Criteria


RED GARAGE VENTURES HACKATHON PARTER ASSESSMENT

1. Clear structured event approach (i.e. help define problem, education night, marketing of event, reach participants, during event)

2. Good access to communities (i.e. universities, startup and domain expertise)

3. Clear marketing resources for pre, during and post approach4. Pre event problem or asset immersion (i.e. education/training

night)5. Clear judging panel recruitment process6. Clear judging idea criteria process7. Clear post event approach (i.e. incubation, communication)8. Physical space engaging, access to resources (i.e. wifi),

transport9. Within budget10.Unique selling point (make event fun, have in-hack

workshops e.g. how to create mvp, how to validate ideas, how pitch, how to set up a shareholders agreement)

Red Garage Ventures - Corporate Innovation framework

Business

Transcript of Red Garage Ventures - Corporate Innovation framework