Search results

Globalization is changing the nature of competition and value creation in ways more subtle and fundamental than simply cost. By incubating scores of new business models that can unseat established companies, globalization is creating opportunities for new value creation and highly profitable growth at the two ends of the value chain – new customer connections at one end and new models of innovation at the other. This article discusses globalization and the changing nature of competition and value creation.

Provides a viewpoint of globalization and the changing nature of competition and value creation.

For many companies, the most powerful moves will be to take advantage of university alliances and global talent sourcing. Every company today, large or small, has to draw the global map of the key talent pools for its business, whether that talent consists of software programmers, machinists, biotechnologists, materials scientists, cinematographers, financial analysts, medical technicians, call center operators, or electronics engineers. The key point is to spend more on the highest‐impact activities. One way is to practice the “open innovation” approach as described by Henry Chesbrough of the University of California at Berkeley, which advocates building on the innovations of others. There is tremendous leverage in shifting your thinking from “not invented here” to “invented elsewhere, monetized here.”

Firms that follow the approach advocated in this paper may gain an advantage in value creation by concentrating not on being the first to deploy a technology but on being the best at designing and using their information.

For all the rhetoric – and hype – about open innovation, the reality is that few corporations have institutionalized open innovation practices in ways that have enabled substantial growth or industry leadership. This paper aims to explain how open innovation can achieve its potential in most companies.

Three cases of companies that practice various types of open innovation are discussed. The principles of establishing an organizational environment for open innovation are outlined.

The ability to move into and out of different industries by capitalizing on ideas and concepts from inside and outside the organization – open innovation – has tremendous value.

Without the appropriate mindset and, ultimately, operational structure in place, the promise of open innovation cannot be realized.

For corporate leaders, the paper identifies a key first step – to deliver on the promise of open innovation an organization must start by making the change from a competition‐focused, market‐share mindset to a competence‐based mindset.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of open innovation (OI).

The paper looks at different forms of OI, including suggestive/participative, suggestive/invitational, directed/invitational and directed/participative.

The paper suggests that in choosing which approach to adopt it is important to first define your strategy and identify what you want to get out of OI. It also suggests that OI needs executive level commitment if it is to succeed, as this is generally the first and most important obstacle that companies face in trying to adopt it.

The paper provides useful information on the concept of OI in corporate strategy.

The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the current practices in “corporate-startup collaboration” and “Open Innovation” (OI) in Europe. OI has increasingly become mainstream. A growing number of European corporates are adopting OI approaches to innovate and benefit from a more agile business environment. As Henry Chesbrough – the father of OI – finds out, there is “no single best model for engagement”. It highly depends on the goals that companies want to achieve. Models and approaches of corporate-startup collaboration are continuously evolving. A study of the variety of their effective-implementations in a real business context is therefore beneficial.

For the purpose of this research, the authors analyzed the European corporates that are considered as “innovation leaders” according to “SEP Europe’s Corporate Startup Stars” annual ranking. According to experts’ evaluations, these companies represent the most advanced case studies in open innovation. The paper analyses the experience of 31 European large corporates implementing effective corporate-startup collaboration. The research approach is exploratory and descriptive.

By adopting a practitioner-oriented perspective, the authors contribute to shed new light on how European corporates adopt OI and internalize arising innovations across organizational boundaries. Six key areas of OI activities have been identified and compared based on required resources’ commitment. Nearly all of the corporates have implemented low-commitment strategies such as organizing one-off startup events and/or sharing free resources with startups. By contrast, only a limited number of corporates engaged actively through acquisitions (M&A), which requires the highest level of commitment. Startup procurement and investments seem to be the most effective approaches to startup-corporate collaboration, while corporate accelerators and innovation outposts are adopted by only nearly half of the companies considered.

Although the research is not a comprehensive survey, it is useful to identify current and future trends of successful corporate-startup collaboration as well as best practices by European leading companies working at the forefront of OI.

This study provides evidence of the main trends in corporate-startup collaborations, both opening up their innovation processes for mutual benefits. The results have important implications both for corporates and policy makers since the study also highlights the main barriers that hinder successful corporate-startup collaborations. Although many of the analyzed corporates report to have introduced “startup-friendly procedures” – including shortening payments times, simplification of vendor registration and qualification process – the vast majority of companies still need to be educated about the opportunities and benefits arising from Open Innovation (OI). This is particularly true for mid-size companies and small and medium-sized companies that based on some preliminary evidences have not yet fully engaged in open innovation due to limited resources and lack of ability to understand the disruption threats posed by recent technology and market evolution.

To date, there is little evidence on current practices of “Open Innovation” and “corporate-startup collaboration” in Europe. Only recently, large European corporations have concretely started to engage with startups. This paper attempts to shed new light on this so-far under-explored issue.

Ask an expert to describe an innovation system that enables companies to successfully advance valuable technologies that fit their current business model – and those that do not fit it.

Strategy & Leadership interviewed Henry Chesbrough author of Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Harvard Business School Press, 2003). His book is based on numerous research projects he conducted.

He developed an open innovation model based on the observation that great inventions can come from both inside and outside the company and should then be commercialized both using the current business model and with alternative business models.

Case studies are needed. Tools are needed for bringing the customer into the open innovation process.

Corporate leaders should review and consider the open innovation model as one approach in their search for new growth businesses.

Open innovation is a radical approach to business growth that is being pioneered by a number of cutting edge firms.

This paper describes the case of how the Danish beer manufacturer, Carlsberg, developed the Green Fiber Bottle as part of its sustainability program through an open innovation approach in collaboration with complementary partners. It thereby illustrates how a grand challenge associated with sustainability can be effectively addressed through open innovation and reveals the opportunities and challenges that emerge in that context.

The paper summarizes some key elements of the case and, in particular, discusses some of the lessons learned, which can be further explored in future research, practice, and policy.

The case suggests a number of key issues that are relevant when attempting to address grand challenges, in general, and sustainability in the food and beverage (F&B) industry, in particular, namely: leveraging open innovation in the face of sustainability as a grand challenge; sustainability beyond a solid business case; opportunities and challenges in the face of new business models; the importance of early wins for addressing societal challenges for signals and scaling; and the importance of the Nordic context and long-term vision.

The case describes a recent (and to some extent still ongoing) initiative of how a particular F&B company has explored new approaches to developing its sustainability program. Therefore, it highlights some of the unique characteristics of this case. This paper also lays the groundwork for the establishment of “Sustainable Open Innovation” as a domain in its own right.

Innovation ecosystems have not been defined univocally. The authors compare the different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature, the link with open innovation, the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, and the need to orchestrate them properly. In this way, the purpose of this paper is to provide a highly needed, concise overview of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking.

A systematic screening of the literature searching for publications focusing on innovation ecosystems is carried out in the paper. The authors found 30 publications and compared the different approaches to innovation ecosystems: the authors classify them according to industries, the level of analysis, their central focus on innovation ecosystems, whether frameworks are developed in the publications, the main actors, focus on SMEs or large companies, the success of innovation ecosystems and the role of the orchestrator.

The authors found different approaches to innovation ecosystems in the literature. Some papers look at the link with open innovation, and others at the value creating and value capturing processes in innovation ecosystems, the role of orchestrators, etc. The authors also provide an overview about the industries, the level of analysis, the central focus of the research, the main actors in the networks and the success factors. The authors observe that most publications have been written in Europe and apply to European ecosystems. The approach in Europe is, to some extent, also different from the main focus of leading American scholars.

The authors compare different approaches to innovation ecosystems. This provides a highly needed understanding of the state of the art in innovation ecosystem thinking. There are some limitations as well: the paper only does a literature review, and the authors are not developing a new framework to study innovation ecosystems.

The literature overview is not primarily focused on practitioners, but the tables in the paper provide a quick overview of good management practices for setting up and managing innovation ecosystems.

Innovations ecosystems are, in some cases, established to solve major societal problems such as changes in healthcare, energy systems, etc. Therefore, they require the interaction between different types of partners including universities, research institutes and governmental agencies. Studying innovation ecosystems is crucial to facilitate social or societal changes.

The paper presents a highly needed overview of the literature about innovation ecosystems and a concise examination of the different aspects that are studied so far.