Open Innovation Goes All the Way
Open innovation should take place throughout the innovation process. Not just in the early phases during what we call the front end of innovation.
Too often, companies fall into this trap. Once they have gotten input from external sources during the front end of innovation, they do everything themselves. Granted, it is a good thing to get a more diverse input early on, but why stop here.
Companies miss out on the full potential of open innovation when they more or less deliberately shut down for external resources later in the process.
I think this happens because companies are more willing to accept external input during the front end of innovation where everyone expects more creativity and openness.
Once this phase is completed, companies go into execution mode. Now, they need to make this work and this is just less complex by only using the resources they already know very well.
Another reason could be that especially large companies still have to develop a win/win attitude in which they realize they can win bigger and better by involving others later in the process even though this means the external partners need to get more influence as well as a bigger slice of the cake.
Actually, I have a hard time finding cases – which I can write about in public – that shows how companies make open innovation work in the later phases of the innovation process.
There are plenty of examples in the early phases; just think user driven innovation or crowdsourcing. Let me know if you can share cases on these later phases.
Thanks for a thought provoking post.
I agree on your two points, but these three could have an impact to.
One reason that companies are reluctant use open innovation i a later phase of the innovation process might be 1) that they can see a profitable innovation emerging and want to keep the cards closer to them 2) innovation at a later stage demands other more hands-on skills from the contributers and stronger communication between the collaborators, creating a gap that might keep people from contributing 3) at the late stage of innovation companies start focusing on the financial potential and might move away from the community approach, by giving financial incentives to the "lead-users or innovators" which might kill the collaborative feeling and move towards a traditional way of organizing innovation.
I am not so sure on this. I think you are 'tagging' open innovation and trying to apply it beyond its original concept.
Where I do agree is there is lots of potential points of collaboration further down the innovation value chain for external providers to participate that is for sure- is this open innovation as defined or are you trying to through it more open?
It was designed from its roots in Research & Development for leveraging external sources of technology and knowledge to drive the front end of the innovation pipeline. It is allowing expansion of ideas, concepts, finding new growth opportunities.
I think you are moving more towards collaborative or networking concepts that should be more open in their intent that promote and accelerate exchange throughout the innovation process. The more open they are, the more likely they can gain from fresh insight and comment but are these 'open innovation' as it is defined?
The great thing from adopting open innovation principles becomes that desire to be more open but this is not open innovation. Of course harnessing external constituencies along the complete process does have benefits but these are defined differently surely?
It is seeking out superior insights, knowledge and intellect to improve on the 'limited' resource you have available internally.
The next step in extending open innovation is the networked effect, that social-networking technologies are giving us so there is great interactions with suppliers, established partners and customers to achieve greater levels of richness or value. This is more 'co-creating innovation' as against the presently more limiting 'open innovation' definition.
It certainly is not unhealthy to throw up the question of extension but by definition alone it might not be right to tag this 'open innovation'