Sunday, July 27, 2008

The role of Trust in Collaboration & Open innovation

Trust Equation

This research from Cisco & the EIU highlighted a significant challenge we face in moving from ‘closed’ to ‘open’ innovation models i.e. linear, proprietary and internally-driven (typically by our own R&D) to collaborative (with suppliers, partners and increasingly customers). As the research suggests, although we talk about collaborating today in fact most collaboration is no more than communicating to coordinate activities or cooperating across departmental boundaries to solve problems, creating no new significant insights or value.

If encouraged, collaboration can be a significant multiplier with each player bringing the sum of their knowledge and the value of this generating new insights impossible to gain via classic problem-solution behaviour; the challenge is to move the operator from addition to multiplication where 3+3 = 6 becomes 3x3 = 9, a 50% improvement.

A good example from my experience is NPD (New Product Development), a process designed to create new value, but often lacking the depth of collaboration necessary to achieve it. Too often each party is ensconced in its organisational, linguistic an cultural corner defending its position and without any real intention to step into the new space necessary to generate something new, compelling, different or with a clear customer value proposition.
This Industry Week article suggests that we are going to see a step increase in collaborative activities, including SME's, right across the value chain creating even more pressure to address the trust deficiency.

So What?

If collaboration is a struggle today, then how much more of an issue is going to be in an open innovation culture? Maybe we need to focus on and solve the internal trust issue that sits behind ineffective internal collaboration before we can progress to more demanding external ones? How many organisations have even considered this as an issue, especially in the context of innovation, or make a serious attempt to build the internal cultural, linguistic and organisational bridges necessary? Few that I know.

The way we manage a business, the metrics and rewards we use to influence behaviour sit at the heart of this and without a better understanding of their role in encouraging or limiting meaningful collaboration and the achievement of our innovation goals our innovation gap is going to grow. Yet another sign that it is time to “stop hunting and start farming lightning!”
Trust equation image courtesy of http://www.designinglife.com/.

A regulatory constraint on UK innovation?

snapshot of cmypitch.com homepage

This post from Springwise on UK start-up http://www.cmypitch.com/ (an online marketplace to match investors and business opportunities) highlighted a regulatory constraint to innovation in the UK:

"Due to UK financial regulations, viewers need to register and then "self certify as an investor" before they can watch a single pitch. Which could seriously hamper the website's growth—users are less likely to forward a video to other potential investors if they know the recipient will need to register and self certify just to view a short clip."

The regulation is conceived to protect investors but one of its unforeseen consequences in the age of online networking is that it does restrict the free circulation of ideas, essential to innovation today. Bizarrely, the regulation implies that only ‘high net worth’ individuals (assets of £250k + or income of £100k + per year) are wise enough to avoid scams and therefore can have access to sites such as cmypitch.com; obviously the UK’s FSA (architect of this regulation) was not around during the last dot.com boom else it would have set the threshold one hell of a lot higher!

So What?

UK government policy states that it is determined to make the UK more innovative and a better place to invest. If it is to achieve this then it is going to have to take a more holistic approach and ensure that all government agencies understand what this means and engage to remove barriers and stimulate and reward innovation.

We should treat potential investors as adults regardless of income or assets. Video pitches such as those on cympitch.com could contain a standard legal warnin as to the high investment risks involved, rather like we see at the beginning and end of films and videos re copyright etc.

Arbitrary income & asset limits such as those imposed by the FSA do not help to encourage UK citizens to take the risks we need to become a more innovative nation. I wonder how many more examples there are out there? Please let me know any you have come across or how other countries deal with the issue.

PS Surely a government agency restricting access to content to those with earnings above a certain limit contravenes basic human rights? I feel an email to the FSA and The European Court of Justice coming on…

Sunday, July 20, 2008

How to Farm Lightning webinar

the H2FL capability model

Thanks to all those who joined the "How to farm Lightning: sustainable innovation for a new era" webinar ealier today - your time and input is appreciated. If you missed it you can can catch the repeat here anytime - no password required.

The next (even better...!) webinar is 10.00GMT (11.00 CET) on Tuesday 22nd August - email info@brendan-dunphy.co.uk for an invite.

The thought piece "H2FL: Sustaining innovation in a shrinking world" mentioned on the call is available as pdf from this link. An updated overview presentation of all the key components of the program will also be available soon.

The 2-day public H2FL workshop hosted by Frost & Sullivan Ltd will run in London on August 11 & 12th. An outline of the workshop is here and online booking here. Further details and telephone booking can be made on +(44) 207 915 7878, or drop me an email or call, details right. Frost & Sullivan is heavilly discounting a second delegate if they are a partner customer or supplier-details directly from Frost & Sullivan on the above number.

More details on the program will be released in the coming days and made available from this blog and http://www.brendan-dunphy.co.uk/.

Happy innovating!

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Innovation beyond the Product

What do we mean by 'innovation'? Scott Berkun in "Why Innovation Is Overrated" on the Harvard Business blog argues that the term "innovation" is vague and useless and we should be focsing on "making great things". I think that making "great things" will always be relevant but it is a very industrial-era concept that belongs to Edison. The world has moved-on and "innovation" needs to catch-up....here is my response:

"So, innovation is just about products is it? I don't think so. Making great things is and always will be relevant but the world has moved on I would argue that innovation is now much more than this.

With many 'commodity' products and services on the market the differentiation is often elsewhere, maybe in the way it is designed, built, delivered, serviced or in the business model used to connect with customers. Shelly Lazarus ( chairman and CEO of Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide) recently stated that over 50% of the stock market value of corporations is now in intangibles. If correct, it raises the question of what role innovation plays in creating intangible value, beyond the product or service these firms sell?

I would argue Scott that rather than get bogged down in how the term “innovation” has been or is being used that it would be more useful to develop a more encompassing definition that better addresses the opportunities and challenges we face - economic, societal and environmental. We need a new definition for a new era, and that definition needs to go beyond the product and encourage and enable us to see the scope for and innovate in every thing we do to create value rather than just the next SUV."

Monday, July 7, 2008

Blue Ocean strategy and the Nissan Qashqai


Dan Blank posted on Blue Ocean strategy last week and its relevance to his industry, publishing. Here is my comment in reponse:

A good practical example of this thinking in practice that may help understanding is the Nissan Qashqai. I attended a Frost & Sullivan Ltd “Best Practice in Innovation Management in the Automotive Industry” workshop in Munich last week and the Qashqai was presented by Mr Hideto Murakami (Senior VP Nissan Europe R&D and Head of Total Customer Satisfaction division) as an example of “opportunity is in the gaps” ; this relates to the ‘blue ocean’ theory you describe.

Nissan’s market research indicated there was an unaddressed market space between conventional 4x4’s and other categories of vehicles. In essence, this segment was those customers’ that liked the styling of 4x4’s but wanted a smaller, easier to drive, more stable and fuel efficient alternative – the Qashqai was born (in Paddington, London in fact, built in Sunderland, UK).

Blue Ocean strategy demands a deep understanding of existing and potential customers (non consumers) as well as how existing products and services are actually used, why they are purchased or not etc. In my experience most firms, eve large ones, do not have this understanding and if they do they often lack the ability to turn these insights into desirable and profitable products, as their processes are inappropriate, designed for a different product era.

The Qashqai has several technological innovations ( eg the muffler is designed to act like an aerofoil to provide better traction) but of more interest to this discussion is the fact that it was designed and produced using x-functional and x-cultural teams, another innovation for Nissan, at least in Europe (a European product developed with Japanese DNA according to Mr Murakami). Maybe without this
parallel innovation in working practices and collaboration, the product would have failed to deliver on its promise? This suggests that spotting an opportunity ‘between the gaps’ is not enough as it may require parallel innovations in the way the product is developed if the strategy is to succeed; blue ocean strategy may also require new blue ocean capabilities.