Henry Chresbrough, the father of all of this. talking about Open Innovation at the Open Innovation & University Conference.
Current paradign: a closed innovation system: a lot of ideas and knowledge that have to be transformed, ‘standarised’ for current production models to reach the market, loosing a lot o possibilities. The process is an one-way-in and one-way-out process: from science -> development -> market.
Which sources of information have we nowadays? Public repositories, as Google or the Public LIbrary of Science. Faculties are anpother good source of infromation and knowledge. Kowledge monolopies are over: industry, the Academia, Journals, USPTO (patents) recipients and, of course, the WWW.
Internal R&D is still needed: it helps to recognised external sources of knowledge, it identifies gaps and holes (they can be sourced outside-outsourcing-) and it enables integration os individual pieces (service?) into a larger whole (it sounds to me gvery close to agent-based systems).
Smallest companies are investing more and more in R&D in the last five years, while largest ones keeps their investent at the same levels. What changed? Five things:
- increasing mobile trained workers
- more capable universities
- dimished US hegemony: Finland, Taiwan…
- erosion of oligopoly market positions
- enormous venture in venture capital (3 orders of magnitude y barely 30 years)
What’s new? An Open Innovation Paradigm: many inputs: internal and external technology bases, tech. insoircing… and meny outputs: licensing, spin-offs.. It’s a tunnel (embudo) with many holes. Each in-way can fill different gaps in the process (some kind of spin-ins). And new information arrrives to new markets or even the market of other firms.
The example of IBM: besides its internal tech base, they used Java and LInux (external tech. base) for their products. And they reach other markets with its licensing OEM and ODM program. Other samples: Procter&Gamble.
How can companies gain access to these ideas?: (1) cultivating relationships with academic researchers and institutions (I like this one ;-): odd and funny critters to manage, with different motivations (money is not the most important thing) (2) knowledge discovery processes: tech scouting, idea «hunts», innovation prizes (as Google Android Developer Chalenge or the Lunar X Prize), internal tech fairs and innovation communities. Very «wikinomical».
A couple of good questions: Can you depend on a continued supply of good external ideas? Can competitors get to those ideas as well as you?
Just to finish, the logic of Open Innovation:
- Good ideas are widely distributed today. No one has a monopoly on useful knowledge anymore
- Financial managers must play poker, as well as ches, to capture the values in false negatives
- Not all of the smart people in the word work for us
Blogged with the Flock Browser