Wie Innovationen in Zukunft entstehen - FFG · InnoCentive NineSigma YourEncore Outcomes Today more...
Transcript of Wie Innovationen in Zukunft entstehen - FFG · InnoCentive NineSigma YourEncore Outcomes Today more...
Wie Innovationen in Zukunft entstehen
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christopher Lettl
Horizon 2020 – ICT Kickoff Veranstaltung21. November 2013
What’s going on?
We are in the midst of a paradigm change.The manufacturer-active perspective is displaced by a user-active perspective.
Innovation center
R&D Lab
Innovation center
Users
(Source: Franke, 2009)
SLIDE 3
The new paradigm has many namesUser innovation, Web 2.0, Wikinomics, Crowdsourcing …
Common message
� there is much creativity and innovativeness
outside firms’ boundaries
� look outside the company!
(Source: Franke, 2009)
The consumer innovator force of
„90% of our customers just want to consume.
Perhaps 10% want to make their own stuff. 1% has the skills to make something
which is good enough for others to want to buy it.
Perhaps 1% is high, let us say 0.1 or even 0.01%,but with a customer base of 3.2 millionthat is still more than 3.000 people!
At the moment we have 150 designers at LEGO“
Paal Smith-Meyers, LEGO
PROCTER & GAMBLE‘s new model forinnovation: „Connect and Develop“
(Source: Huston/Sakkab, 2007)
Marketing
Manu-facturing
Lead users
Technology entrepreneurs
P&G
R&D
Purchasing
InnoCentive
NineSigma
YourEncore
Outcomes
Today more than 35% of newproducts come from outside.
45% of initiatives in NPD portfoliofrom outside.
R&D productivity increased by 60%.
Innovaton success rate has doubledwhile costs for innovation havefallen.
R&D investments as % of salesdown from 4,8% in 2000 to 3,4% today.
Share price doubled and portfolio of22 billion dollar brands.
Contrasting Principles of Closed andOpen Innovation
Closed Innovation Principles Open Innovation Principles
The smart people in our field work for us. Not all the smart people work for us. We need to work with smart people inside AND outside our company.
To profit from R&D, we must discover it, develop it, and ship it ourselves.
External R&D can create significant value; internal R&D is needed to claim someportion of that value.
If we discover it ourselves, we will get it to market first.
We don‘t have to originate the research toprofit from it.
The company that gets an innovation to market first will win.
Building a better business model is betterthan getting to market first.
If we create the most and the best ideas in the industry, we will win.
If we make the best use of internal ANDexternal ideas, we will win.
We should controll our IP, so that our competitors don‘t profit from our ideas
We should profit from others‘ use of ourIP, and we should buy others IP wheneverit advances our business model.
(Source: Chesbrough, 2003)
The Case
INNOCENTIVE.COM
FUßZEILESEITE 7
8
The (Business) Model:Broadcast Search
R&D-labs of companies Awards between
InnoCentive.com
300.000 independent scientists,200 countries
R&D labof a
company
Broker
Scientists withdifferent backgrounds
Solutions
Problem
Solution
$5,000 to $1 million
9
HHowhow succesfulow successful is search?Hio
► Companies invest from 6 month to 2 years into the problem solving
process
►Ø $30.000 for an award-winning solution
►Given duration for the solution process appr. 6 month
► 49 of 166 problems (29.5%) were solved (June 2001-December 2004)
► 75 awards
► Ø 240 individuals survey a specific problem
► Ø 10 submissions per problem
► Ø invested time: ~ 74 hours by a winner
~ 36 hours by a non-winner
(Source: Lakhani/Jeppesen, 2007)
How effective isbroadcast search at InnoCentive?
10
Former probelms posted by seeker-company
Given duration of solution processProblem complexity
Former problems posted by seeker-company
Explanation of likelihood forproblem solution
-1.638**
(0.628)
2.305**
(0.739)
0.049
(0.333)
-1.897ˆ
(1.134)
0.626ˆ
(0.376)
-1.697**
(0.536)
-0.418
(0.449)
0.566
(0.413)
Model 5
ˆsignificant at 10%
*significant at 5%
** significant at 1%
*** significant at 0.1%
Different scientific interests attracted
Award-value
Seeker-company experience
General-orientation of the problem solver
Type of solvers attracted
Number of submissions
Size of problem solver basis (Log)
Problem solving community
Type of solution
Control-variables
Log Pseudolikelihood -50.59Wald‘s Chi Square 44.29***Df 19Pseudo R Square 0.39
Generalist orientation of theproblem solver
Diverse scientific interestsattracted
- Logistic regression(1=solved / 0=unsolved)
- Data for n=166 problems
- Data for scientific interestsof the problem solver
(Source: Lakhani/Jeppesen, 2007)
11
► Web-based questionnaire for those problem solvers who submitted a
solution
► N= 993; n=337; rate of return: ~34%
► Questions regarding the problem solving process and motivation
► Data for scientific interests of problem solver at InnoCentive.com
Explanation of likelihood for an award-winning problem solution (1)
(Source: Lakhani/Jeppesen, 2007)
Explanation of likelihood for an award-winning problem solution (2)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Control variables
Solution type0.18
(0.410)
0.183
(0.411)
0.238
(0.422)
0.237
(0.423)
0.292
(0.438)
0.33
(0.446)
Zeit, Lösung zu entwickeln0.003*
(0.001)
0.004**
(0.001)
0.004**
(0.001)
0.004**
(0.002)
0.004*
(0.002)
0.004*
(0.002)
Motivations
Gewinn des Preisgeldes0.307
(0.187)
0.386*
(0.185)
0.426ˆ
(0.241)
0.470*
(0.220)
0.503*
(0.214)
Career | Social Motivations-0.258
(0.188)
0.463*
(0.220)
0.464*
(0.220)
0.371ˆ
(0.214)
0.398ˆ
(0.221)
Intrinsische Motivation0.566**
(-0.182)
0.599**
(-0.218)
0.625**
(-0.203)
0.668**
(0.22)
Deveating other solution providers-0.417ˆ
(0.228)
-0.400ˆ
(0.234)
Dissatisfaction in job-0.074
(0.264)
-0.126
(0.265)
Freie Zeit vorhanden0.513*
(0.237)
0.559*
(0.234)
Expertise
Generalist orientation-0.315ˆ
(0.172)
Problem-Distanz vom Feld der eigenen Expertise
0.398*
(0.197)
Robuster Standardfehler
in Klammern
ˆsignifikant auf 10%
* signifikant auf 5%
** signifikant auf 1%
*** signifikant auf 0.1%
Log Pseudolikelihood -98.544 -96.706 -93.276 -93.251 -88.174 -85.627Wald‘s Chi Square 6.36* 11,81* 22.40*** 22.05*** 26.59*** 32.14***Df 2 4 5 6 8 10Pseudo R Square 0.0270 0.0451 0.0790 0.0793 0.1294 0.1545
Problem distance to owndomain
Intrinsic Motivation
Winning the Award
Time to develop solution
Free time available
13
Is broadcast search efficient?
Did not use previously developed solution
Used previously developed solution
n=40 winning solvers
Source of solution-information
27.5 %
72.5%
Sometimes the solution is build on previous work. Was your submission to this challenge based on:
A. A solution you had already developed in your own work with:1 - No modifications, 4 - Minor modifications, 7 - Major modifications;NA - This was not based on any of my previous work
B. An existing solution that you knew about that could solve the challenge with:1 - No modifications, 4 - Minor modifications, 7 - Major modifications;NA - This was not based on anyone else’s work
(Source: Lakhani/Jeppesen, 2007)
Implications for R&D
� New role
� New competencies
� New incentives
� Complementarity
FUßZEILESEITE 14
A changing reality
The way it was: Producer-Innovators and “Robinson Crusoe”
Users
The way it increasingly is:Innovation communities
producer
users
�
�
�
�
��
�
�
�
�� users
�
�
�
producer
�
��
�
�
�
��
(Source: Franke, 2009)
The brain• Computer “brain” within Lego brick
Movement• 3 stepper motors
Sensors• Light• Touch• Temperature
Teaching• Kid-friendly, graphical
programming environment• Programs downloaded from
PC via infrared
Price ~ $200
Mindstorms robot kit
The Mindstorms Experience
Lego Mindstorms user communities grew rapidly
- without company involvement -
Robots become widely available
August 1998
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
900
Nov1997
Jun1998
Feb1999
Oct1999
Jun2000
Jan2001
Aug2001
Apr2002
100
Lego robots announced
January 1998
Members
Within 3 weeks of commercial introduction users had improved it significantly
The rules
Robots follow 7 meter “track” of tape• Light sensors detect tape • Internal software tells robot how to
move
Fastest time around track wins
About one dozen participants
The results
Winner (below left)• Used hacker-developed LegOS software• Time under 10 seconds (73 cm/s)
Second place (below right)• Used program based on LEGO firmware• Time of 25 seconds (28 cm/s)
Ability to rapidly sample sensors was the key
(Source: Italian Lego Users Group(http://www.itlug.org/) Contact Mario Ferrari [[email protected]])
LEGO was not sure how to respond –for several years
(Source: BCG interviews)
“There was almost a full year without a word from Lego: Neither acknowledgement of what was going on nor threats towards the hackers.”
David Baum, Lego hacker
“Lego executives simply didn’t know what to do …”
Internal Lego executive
Today, LEGO is creating links to innovating fans
“LEGO DesignByMe”Website links youngfans who wantto share their designs
Top innovators from “Adult Fans of Lego”participate in LEGO factory product development teams
For NXT Mindstorms Robot product line:• Lego adopts key existing AFOL
innovations• Lego asks a few AFOL members to join
R&D team
The Threadless Innovation & Business Model
The community is „the heart and soul“ of Threadless.
(Source: Lakhani, 2008)
SpineConnectInnovative collaborative communities also exist in high-tech markets.
• International community of leading spine surgeons
• Exchange and collaborate on difficult and unusual cases – and new treatments
(Source: http://syndicom.com/physicians/spineconnect)
Attractive
Attractive vision
Attracting competent actors of diverseexpertise
Self-selection
Development Testing
Gatekeeping & Recomposition
Meritocracy
Social control
Transparency of tasks
Modularproblem-
architectureProtocols
- Collectively developed -
Shared goals, norms & values- Collectively developed -
Peer-to-peer interaction
Peer-review
Knowledge accumulationvia commons
Transparency of contributions
ICT-Infrastructure
Mix ofIntrinsic & extrinsic rewardsICT-Infrastructure
as enabler
Peer-production indecentralized networks
Relational contracting
Generalizedreciprocity
Summary and Conclusions
� Innovation is becoming more and more democratized.
� This shift creates rich opportunities for producer firms,but also major challenges.
� ICT as enabler.
� Major implications for R&D.
� New role of managers!?
© Institut für Strategie, Technologie und Organisation
� Entwicklung von innovativenKonzepten, um bestehende Problemeoder Kundenbedürfnisse zu adressieren
� Anwendung der „Design-Thinking“-Methode
� Interdisziplinäre Studententeams
� Output: Mehrfach getestete Funktionsmodelle oder Prototypen
25
Interessiert an der Umsetzung vonOpen Innovation in Ihrer Organisation?
In unseren Lehrformaten entwickeln wir mit Praxispartnern neue Produkte, Services oder Geschäftsmodelle!
Produkt & Service Innovation Business Model Innovation
� Entwicklung von Geschäftsmodellen
� Systematische Anwendung von state-of-the-art Methoden zur Analyse und Konzeptualisierung
� Praxiscoaches
� Output: Projektbericht und Kompetenzenvermittlung
In Kooperation mit
Nadine [email protected]+43-1-31336-5479
Markus [email protected]+43-1-31336-5970