Open Innovation VS Closed Innovation

Welcome to my blog, in this blog i discuss about innovation, management and business strategy.

Today topic is a discussion between a concept in innovation that is defined as type of innovation strategy.

Nowadays, innovation discussion is clearly a critical dimension in any dynamic approach to business, as it allows businesses to achieve and defend competitive advantage.

Closed innovation, is the more classical approach to innovation, and in such, it develop patents, (intellectual property, licenses and grants) through formal means, and closed corporations.

Open Innovations is more related to the development of technology through adiacent and common techniques, such as outsourcing, competition establishing, and game theory.

Open Innovation, as defined by Dr. Henry Chesbrough in his book, is: “the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. Open Innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as they look to advance their technology. (Chesbrough, Open Innovation, p.2).”

Here is a graph of the two distinct type of innovations as explained in his book.

Graph explaining the different type of innovation strategy.

In the past i had the privilege of working for a short time period in both type of organisations, closed ones and open ones. I wont say which organisation for reason of privacy. But they were large organisations.

In both organisations the important aspect was the development of work in which was happening. I noticed immediately that in the open innovative business communication was more open and the setting of collaboration was more direct, whereas, the type of collaboration in closed innovation was more secretive, as patents and new research and development techniques were happening.

Personally i preferred the open innovative business, which allowed to learn new skills such as Wiki development and learning Marketing first hand and people skills. Working in open innovative companies is like working for a new startup, in which capital is limited, but passion is everywhere, and there is will to improve even when there are limited resources, whereas working in closed innovative companies is challenging as resources are present, but competition drives the work.

Today topic is more of a self reflection and less of a guide, compared to previous topics.

However, I will post a second article about Edge Strategy soon, as I am reading a book about it, and will be related to Corporate Strategy.

Advertisements

Digital Disruptive Technologies

Today’s topic of innovation management goes and discuss an important trend started by a research of Harvard Professor Clayton Christensen.

The topic is one of Technological Disruption. The main force, which allows small incumbents to compete against large players in the marketplace.

Not everybody is aware of this trend in Innovation Management is almost 30 years old, started in 1995 goes and analyses various technologies and industries in which innovations have brought to its knees big corporations.
As discussed in his introduction in the Innovator Dilemma, companies often fail because there are cheaper new technologies which allow targeting future customers revenue, even if at the time of the release of the original product they are unaware of the latest Technology.
Clayton divided its book into ten chapters and discussed in the first chapters about the failure to implement these new innovations.
At the same time, goes and proceeds by explaining success strategies in the field of business.
It’s essential to notice that most of the literature is wrong to target only to failure, but he builds his case against valid points. There are other schools which also sustain his thesis, which, define that most often is the management fault of big companies which make the company fail to implement or develop new technologies. In recent times, it is explained that this failure in management is not only due to new cheaper Technology, but also because successful companies try to compete in new market segments which are not ready.
There is a rationale behind all that, and that with the advent of the disruptor, the existing player has already focused its energy on his current strategy, thus, is unable to concentrate his effort to the new Technology.

Image-1.jpg

In my latest article, I gave a little explanation of what disruption management should be about, but I forgot to mention the importance of disruption in business.

According to research from Stanford University, every disruption brings prosperity as GDP grows, and so does the spending.

Currently there the trend is in the banking industry.
New technologies have been developed that allow for a better mobile banking experience, and the economist goes and explains that there could be saving for each person if these new technologies are implemented.
Currently, I have not completed the section about disruptive technology because it is a chapter which I’m reading currently about in my literature research, so please do allow me some more time to collect more informations about new technologies such as bitcoin and blockchain and how they can be implemented in other markets and industries, not only in the financial sector.

Currently, I’m also reading Hernando De Soto, Why Capitalism Triumph in the west and fails elsewhere, and I believe that this two topics can be interconnected, as his thesis is about property law and services to extralegal, and I’m becoming a fan of this topic.

Innovation management as part of Change Management

Thank you for following this blog post, and if you haven’t started to follow me yet, I would suggest you to do it and leave some comments, as most of the blog post are from my readings, but I can be wrong…

Today topic is relating Innovation Management to Change Management, an aspect of management related to business performance.

Innovation Management can be seen as a subset of change management, in fact, in change management there are four types of strategic changes, which are:

Technology, Product and Services, Strategy and Structure, Culture Changes.

Screen Shot 2019-04-09 at 20.06.43.png

These all relates to Organisational Change, in the sense that in order to stay competitive, firms, have to change either one of this aspects, with time.

Technology Change and Product and Services change is what is more related to Innovation Management, in fact, companies in order to succeed implement new technologies, such as communication technology, or create new products and services to sell to the customer, in order to stay ahead of competition.

 

No company can say that they dont implement some change. In fact is by  implementing some kind of change that business can stay competitive, it is even told that competitive advantage is created from strategic changes.

Strategy and structure are more related to organisational design, in fact, from what i understood, organisational design is the alignment of corporate strategy with the working of the workforce, or more precisly with corporate functions.

Last but not least, cultural change is the most difficult to implement, as there is always tension and people tend to like the status quo, thus avoid changing. Cultural change can be anything, from the change of workhours, to change in how customers are treated by the employee.