7 Reasons Big Companies Can’t Build Strong Relationships for Innovation
What are the common mistakes or missteps that organizations should avoid as they try to build trust within their innovation networks and communities? It would be great to have a discussion on this so I look forward to your input based on my discussion starter below.
Mindset: We are bigger and better than you. Unfortunately, some companies still have this attitude even when they look into external collaboration opportunities. It does not help so drop it and find each other on equal terms.
Networking culture: Some companies do not understand that a strong innovation culture requires a strong networking culture. There is no networking strategy, no process, no training of the employees and most importantly, the employees are not given the time to develop relationships.
Resources: This ties into the above issue on infrastructure. It takes an investment – especially with regards to allocating the proper time – in order to build strong relationship building capabilities.
Outreach: Since you have initiated some open innovation efforts, you most likely understand that you can’t do everything by yourself. This should also apply to building your internal process. You might not need to engage external service providers such as NineSigma or InnoCentive, but you need to know who they are and how they could help you expand your network.
Communication: This builds on my first point. Do you speak the same “language” as those you are trying to build a relationship with? We often forget that we see things differently leading us to have different views and even a different vocabulary on many things.
The next two were added in a discussion with Kevin McFarthing:
Process – or lack thereof: All too often legal agreements seem intended to prevent any interaction rather than facilitate it. You can see this in some portals where submitters are expected to agree to statements several pages long, rather than being kept simple. Companies need to have straightforward, sensible and welcoming approaches to process.
People treatment: Companies that do well with open innovation also understand the valaue of good personal relationships, treating people as people and not as potential assets. This can be the glue to hold projects together, as well as to facilitate good communication and project output. The more you think about the people aspect, the more likely you are to have engaging communication and to have a successful networking strategy.
What can you add?
Great post – lots of food for thought. I second (or third?) the point about process. Innovation is one of those great-sounding ideas that everyone understands is a good idea, but it needs structure to thrive. Without defined processes for innovation it's just throwing up ideas without getting anything done, and it can be very disruptive to the core business – or companies go to the other extreme and stop questioning or trying to improve anything in the name of productivity.
Lack of company COURAGE….
I would add Branding (not leveraging or considering the implications of their efforts on the brand) and Marketing – not making Open Innovation a strategic initiative that is integrated into the company's marketing efforts and promoted by them (at the same time feeding information back to marketing that might be useful from the Open Innovation efforts), while keeping many of the other things you mention above.
Braden (@innovate)
Great point of view. I would like to add the fact that up to me, implicate end users in an innovative process from the idea to the promotion of the new product is a transverse process, very difficult for big companies to apply as they are still organized in vertical silos (R&D, marketing, communication, sales…) This is good news for mid sizes companies! Opportunites for those who will understand and apply crowd innovation with end users
Risk aversion…..in multiple ways. E.g. By engaging with outside world with openness and an almost childlike willingness to learn, instead of approaching people as if they are going to take away your new toy (yep, innovation has a lot to do with PLAY); being vulnerable by giving first instead taking and the other way round, which at first glance looks safer. Or, as a second example, by just looking at innovation in terms of short term ROI instead of the broader, and therefore, less predictable and therefore also risky context. As Patrick mentioned, it takes courage to face risks and make the more riskier decision.
I believe innovation is a question of entrepreneurship. What if senior managers of big company were more politicians than entrepreneurs? they would not necessary adopt the right attitude to efficiently enable open innovation
One of the key watchouts is not to go in with only a "what's in it for me attitude". The effort should be to help your partner grow from the initial relationship development process. Often in large organizations this is overlooked which results in mistrust and less productivity. While I consider tangible "win-win" concepts in reality a myth but when small innovators get the opportunity to augment their capabilities with large partners a feeling of mutual give and take often emerges and persists even when the contractual partnership ends. It has been my experience that often the bright ideas are generated in post contractual periods and is passed along based on how the initial relationship was initiated and maintained.