What Does It Take To Lead In Open Innovation

We've mentioned the benefits of open innovation on this blog before. We're fans of it if used correctly, which isn't all that easy sometimes. When established organizations attempt to innovate, they usually go down the tried and true path of structured, bureaucratic, top down innovation, from brainstorming to launch.

This is, as we know, not always effective in producing truly innovative results. Pure innovation is often the purview of entrepreneurial firms with no structure of which to speak and a rough and tumble environment. Out of this very model has come though, a prototype for effective leadership in an open innovation system

...open innovation communities provide an opportunity to develop theories of human and social capital in a novel context that lacks pecuniary incentives, hierarchical authority, and formal structure.

A post, Leadership in Open Innovation Communities, builds upon that opportunity and discusses several types of leaders that are present in open innovation communities and takes a stab at which is more effective.

Leadership in such communities depends more on the trust and mobilization of peers than on approval of superiors. To wit, members cannot be fired or forced to participate in any activity, nor can they be compelled to pay attention to any other member. Ascendancy in such relationships relies purely, to borrow a phrase from politics, on "the power to persuade"

The post goes on to discuss "brokers", calculating and politically-savvy operators those most likely to have made it to the top of traditional organizations. And "boundary-spanners" defined as well respected guardians who redirect crucial information both within and outside the firm. Each of these leadership styles has its merits, but boundary-spanners tend to be more respected in an open innovation environment.

This is, of course, obvious. In an open innovation situation, where leadership is determined by the group rather than by upper level management, participants will be most likely to look to the one who garners the most respect AND has the ability to lead.

Unfortunately, far too often, those with a repository of knowledge are not in leadership positions in a corporation, which means for open innovation to truly work, the management structure needs to be broken down. Participants need to disregard title and seek knowledge and innovative thinking, which may be why creative product development groups in corporations tend to be people with young employees not yet as aware of the hidden power structure within the corporation.

Is it possible to change this paradigm? Can we create open innovation working groups in large corporations by assigning group members from various functions and expect them to ignore position and title?

Well. Yes. Maybe. The make-up of the team, in terms of personality and ability to lead or follow plays perhaps a bigger role than in traditional work terms where expertise is valued. In some ways a Machiavellian approach to putting together a team of personalities seems to be in order. Careful consideration of how team members will interact and who might emerge as a leader seems appropriate.

Does this follow true to the spirit of open innovation? I don't know, but it's one avenue for large, established corporations to follow.

Interview: Rodney Gainer

I have been very fortunate to be in touch with Rodney Gainer over the last couple of years. He has worked as the Director of Business Enhancement for the Innovation Resource Centre for more than four years. During his time there, he assisted new inventors and established entrepreneurs on their commercialization efforts.

Rodney holds a business administration diploma from the college of New Caledonia and currently works as web developer for Noratek Solutions, one of the largest technology companies in North-Central BC.

I had the opportunity to interview Rodney about the Innovation Resource Centre and innovation in general. Here are his responses to these questions.

What is the Innovation Resource Centre?

Innovation Resource Centre enables economic growth and diversification based on the commercialization of innovative technology in the Central Interior of BC. We provide support to new and established entrepreneurs through both one to one advising as well as workshops and seminars. We organize networking and idea exchange opportunities and pursue an active communications and research program that creates a broader, better understanding of the role of technology in our economy.

Who were your early role models and what were the main things you learned from them?

Ray Savidan the owner of a forest company. I learned not only to work hard but to work smart. Physical strength only get you so far. Ray taught me to work smarter not harder and to trying new things, not to be afraid to think outside the box.

Dawn Miller, former Executive Director at Innovation Resource Centre, taught me to know my limits and how to work within them. By knowing your limits you learn when to ask for help before you actually need it. Also the ability to be a good listener and how to look at he big picture.

In your opinion what are the key trends affecting the innovation landscape?

Available talent and connectivity are keys to innovation.

The current labor shortages changing how people do business. They are embracing more automated systems that are able to do the jobs that used to be done by a person. The simplest example is the voice mail I got left the other day about the latest Canadian Blood Services blood drive campaign.

Connectivity is more than just a connection to the Internet. It is also to your personal and business networks. It is not only what you know it is who you know who has access to the resources that you will help you achieve success.

What is an example of an innovative company that people have never heard of?

Alterna Energy Inc. believes the world should strive to maximize the value from precious natural resources. Hence the question most often heard around Alterna, 'Why combust when you can carbonize?' Most biomass energy conversion systems take biomass such as wood waste and process it to produce heat energy and ash through combustion or gasification processes. Alterna's 'enviro carbonization' process will produce high quality carbon and heat energy which can be converted into electricity. Carbon is found in all biomass and is used in hundreds of valuable carbon products used by people around the world. Carbon for medicinal use. Carbon for filtering our water. Carbon for use as a reductant in the metal smelting industry. Carbon is a key element in our complex world and can also provide a renewable source of green energy.

What is a biggest pitfall that impedes successful innovation?

People. Many inventors and entrepreneurs are very short sighted when it comes to the success of their inventions and businesses. They believe they can do everything to make their product or service successful which makes them their own worst enemy. To achieve success people need to work with people who can get their innovation to the next level. Is it better to have 100% of nothing or 10% of a million dollars?

List a few of your favorite sites on Innovation.

www.changethis.com - Change This ' uses pdf's, blogs and the web to spread important ideas and change minds.

www.sethgodin.typepad.com - Seth Godin's blog - the agent of change.

www.innovationtools.com - Innovation Tools - a collection of resources on business, innovations, creativity and brainstorming.

www.thecis.ca - The Centre for Innovation Studies - a non-profit in Calgary, Alberta that focuses on research, networking and education.

Thanks Again Rodney!

Protect Your Cleantech - IP May Play A Role In Determining Who Leads The Pack

With Vancouver named one of the top 10, "New Silicon Valleys" of the clean tech industry, worldwide that is, the role of innovation and the associated pitfalls is on my mind these days. Burnaby based, Ballard Power Systems may be said to have pioneered the fuel cell industry and ex employees are busily creating new companies and uses for the technology.

In the midst of all of this activity certain essential tasks associated with successful innovation can be overlooked. In any rapidly evolving industry, inevitably innovation will overlap and application of existing technologies will tend to be "discovered" by several, if not many different companies. So, it is in cleantech.

That activity that will play such an important role in the ultimate success of a clean technology product turns out to be protection of intellectual capital.

I've written before about the importance of intellectual property protection. A post Mass High Tech.com, Energy, Clean Tech and IP: Protecting Innovation, speaks specifically to the challenges firms in the cleantech industry face.

While an important component to any technology-based company's success, intellectual property is especially important for "clean tech" ventures encompassing energy or environmentally related technologies.

For clean tech companies, it's important to note that investors consider strong IP essential for both first to market companies and those that follow (to protect a key technology for later market entry or licensing/acquisition.)

Cleantech is, of course, an umbrella term that encompasses a wide variety of technologies and spans a variety of different industries. The rationale for application of intellectual property protection therefore varies by industry. Does it promote investor confidence? Is it important as a defensive strategy? Can it be used to encourage licensing down the road?

Clearly, whether or not the reason is immediately obvious, innovators in the space need to take steps early on to protect technological innovation and continue to revisit the applicability of those technologies as the company grows and the discovers new uses for existing patented processes.

Similarly, don't dismiss patent protection for clean tech ventures with a long time-frame to market or long technology lifespan. Strategic patent filing approaches may be available in some jurisdictions, increasing patent enforcement life, for example, until the effort reaches a certain state of commercial viability. It's also possible to file initial applications relating to core aspects of the technology, then stagger subsequent filings for incremental changes.

Like the early days of the dotcom boom, intellectual property protection will play a big role in who turns out to be the winners and the losers in cleantech. Those companies which use forethought and innovative thinking, in every aspect of their business, including legal protection, will be much better positioned to be on the winning end. As new uses for the current technology, as well as, new applications for technologies currently in development arise, appropriate intellectual property protection will be key.

I know I sound like an advertisement for the legal profession, but in an industry highly dependent on break through innovation, the appropriate IP may be the deciding point between leadership and second place.

You Just Don't Understand - The Conflict Between Corporate And Business Unit Innovators

One of the challenges that every large business seems to face is developing an actionable innovation strategy. In smaller companies innovation often happens naturally. Company employees and founders gather in a room to discuss day-to-day operations. The conversation veers off into a brainstorming session; everyone gets excited. Tasks to make the innovative new idea happen are assigned and off everyone goes to implement the latest great idea, often dropping other initiatives along the way. But, that's OK.

In larger organizations with more developed job descriptions; bonus structures tied to quarterly or annual performance and clear lines of communication drawn, taking an innovative idea to fruition can be frustrating and hampered by conflicting priorities.

So, it was interesting when I ran across this article The difference between corporate and business unit innovation at Innovate On Purpose I don't think you can be any clearer than

... the corporate team and business unit teams are a lot like a pushmi-pullyu - both want to innovate, for different reasons and purposes and have different motivations and concerns.

Corporate strategist are often the champions of innovation. They may be innovators at heart or they may just realize that the key to growth goes beyond continual improvement. Stellar growth requires a constant parade of new products and new ideas, as well as, improvements on existing ones.

However, corporate strategists, while great at cheerleading are rarely in a position to implement innovative strategies. Sometimes they are in advisory or ancillary roles and not in a line position with the authority to allocate resources. If they are responsible for a business unit, they may be so far or so long away from actual tactical responsibility that they may not be aware of the enormous resources needed to actually create and launch an innovative product or service. More importantly, they may not have the authority, which often comes directly from the top, to change priority so that time and resources can be given over for innovation.

Bottom up innovation is stymied because clear lines between business units and the corporate power brokers may be limited or, more often, corporate executives feel powerless or do not understand that a priority shift is needed to accomplish the goal of innovation. Worse, those with the power to allocate resources to innovation may they themselves have conflicting priorities. But there are options to break this gridlock.

- a corporate team focused on longer term disruptions that are suggested by the business units that simply don't have the time or bandwidth to focus on what's next, and a corporate team that provides trends and strategy insights to business unit teams to extend their visibility. A corporate team can provide resources and funding to assist the business units with their mid and longer term innovation needs and take on the creation of new markets or "blue oceans".

In my opinion, this outline has possibilities. It does however veer away from the traditional path toward innovation - setting up separate innovation teams. Managers pulled from various business units and assigned to a group tasked with developing innovative new products. While I agree that corporate innovators have their place. Engaging them in the process and more importantly, getting them to back the project and free up resources I think is a better role for them to play.

Real innovation travels up the corporate ladder, not down. Just give a cross functional innovation team the resources they need and the power to make things happen and get out of the way.

Finalists anncounced for the 2008 Burnaby Business Excellence Awards

The Burnaby Board of Trade announced their finalists for the 2008 Burnaby Business Excellence Awards. Congratulations to the nominees!

The finalists in the 8 award categories include:

Burnaby Community Spirit Award Finalists:
- Best Buy Canada Ltd.
- Brentwood Town Centre
- Scotiabank
- Vancity South Slope Community Branch
- Westminster Savings Credit Union, Metrotown Community Branch

Business Innovation Award Finalists:
- Day4 Energy
- Icron Technologies Corp.
- M&R Environmental
- Snap Technologies Marketing
- Web Tech Wireless

Entrepreneurial Spirit Award Finalists:
- Icron Technologies Corp.
- Image Path Printing Solutions
- Imagine Redesign
- MetroLeap Media Inc.
- Rock.Paper.Scissors Inc.

Environmental Sustainability Award Finalists:
- Day4 Energy
- Encorp Pacific (Canada)
- Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.
- M&R Environmental
- SFU Facilities Services

Non-for-Profit Organization of the Year Award Finalists:
- Basketball BC
- Bonsor Seniors Society
- The Neil Squire Society
- L'Arche Greater Vancouver
- Progressive Housing Society

Business Person of the Year Award Finalists:
- Keith Beedie, The Beedie Group
- Richard Davies, G&F Financial
- Don Hardman, 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup
- Randy Hnatko, Trainwest Management & Consulting
- Coro Strandberg, Strandberg Consulting

Small Business of the Year Award Finalists:
- Binary Stream Software, Inc.
- Jubilee Cycle
- Petal Pushers
- Simba's Grill
- Snap Technologies Marketing

Business of the Year Award Finalists:
- ABC Recycling
- The Beedie Group
- Best Buy Canada Ltd.
- Kin's Farm Market
- Stormtech

Management by Not Having Any - A Key to Innovation?

I just attended a workshop co-hosted by Ralph Kerle of the Creative Leadership Forum and was struck by his discussion of Arup.

Who?

Well, if you spent a significant amount of time watching the Beijing Olympics this year you may have seen their work: The Water Cube- The National Aquatics Center where the swimming events were held. Other projects to their credit include The Sydney Opera House and the Millennium Bridge in London.

Arup is an engineering firm... of sorts. Actually it is an organization held in trust for its 9000 staff members including engineers, architects, designers and consultants in over 37 countries. There are no shareholders and no discernable management structure. Yet, they manage to work on over 10,000 at any one time and build some of the most memorable and innovative structures in the world today.

One might call them innovators.

As Ralph Kerle wrote in his article Creative Leadership and the Water Cube at the Beijing Olympics,

... innovation in the building industry is very difficult... Every building is a prototype that mustn't fail. In structural engineering, you just cannot fail or the building will fall down.

This might lead to the conclusion that engineering firms must remain risk adverse at all costs, but risk adverse doesn't mean and mustn't mean forgoing innovation, for one important reason.

The production of the basic building materials on which our civilization exists is depleting our natural resources. As the global population rushes towards 9 billion, our consumption is exceeding our resources. The destruction of the rainforests, the depletion of oil supplies, the failure to find reliable energy alternatives and food shortages offer compelling evidence of this occurring.

The lead in changing the risk-adverse paradigm in the building industry therefore falls to innovative firms like Arup. Founded by Ove Arup, a philosophy and mathematics major from Copenhagen, Arup is unique in its management approach and its business philosophy which might just be little different than what I claimed here was one of my favorite quotes:

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work." Thomas Edison.

At Arup, new employees are introduced to the firm philosophy and encouraged to go and seek out projects that hold his or her interest. The new employee is expected to be innovative and creative and a full fledged partner in the project, as all team members are.

Ove Arup's philosophy is the guiding principle that enables the company to create such beautiful, innovative and practical structures.

Arup recognised individuals as being innately creative. He reasoned if you provided employees with the simple humanitarian conditions of self organisation and creative freedom, an employer gained loyalty, respect and integrity from the employee, these values became recognised and respected by stakeholders and as a consequence the organisation was seen as reasonable, reliable and ethical.

Is this philosophy transferable to other types of companies? Of course and it must be because we are all faced with a global crisis in the making, as our natural resources are depleted.

Is this philosophy and management structure the only way to create innovative products. Of course not, but providing employees with an environment where they are valued for their creativity; their input is solicited and where they work on projects they like is certainly one way that's worth trying.

Insights from Honeywell's IP Expert in India

We were delighted to recently become engaged in a dialogue with an engineer and intellectual property expert, Suddha Basu, from the Honeywell Technology Solution Labs in India. He is nothing short of an IP junkie, having responsibilities at HTSL that include: intellectual property research analytics, patent mapping, IP mining, technology clustering, IP licensing analysis, IP led business growth, planning and strategic innovation counseling.

Honeywell is a large and diverse manufacturing company that is primarily the 1999 merger product of US defense giant AlliedSignal and the well branded consumer products manufacturer that made products like home heating thermostats. Wikipedia describes the company as "a major American multinational conglomerate company that produces a variety of consumer products, engineering services, and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations."

Before joining HTSL last year, Suddha worked for Wipro, serving multiple Fortune 500 clients as an IT OEM specialist. He also hosted a radio show at Entertainment Network India which isn't something common to most engineers and IP experts.

Suddha was quite willing to share some things about himself, some trends to be mindful of, current examples of innovation successes in India, how to measure innovation success and avoid a common pitfall. Here are his responses to these questions.

Who were your early role models and what were the main things you learned from them?

When I was younger I thought that conceptualizing a scientific principle or manufacturing novel products with great lot of complex math behind them, are the most critical factors in determining the success or failure of that invention, little did I think about the usefulness of inventions which were never commercialized or inventions which never became an innovation, ( i.e. a new stuff which did not become popular to its end users en masse) In my high school days, my school teachers, various discovery channel science shows and the Indian IT boom of the 1990s, made me realize that consumer needs and /or wants when get satisfied in a product or service, creates an innovation. And that is not always necessarily related to difficult mathematical equations. As we all know great things are always simple in their concept.

What key trends do we need to be aware of?

When a highly experienced researcher or a veteran marketer who is an expert in his / her area or market, working for a big university or a multi billion dollar corporation, suddenly quits his/her job and creates or joins an obscure startup company; is an example when you should expect a trend to emerge in a small and niche technology / market gap. Mere patent numbers, financial or market research data don't give you any real trend. It's the people behind all those numbers who can show you the future of science, society and money!

What is an example of an innovative company in India that people have never heard of?

Till date human civilization has showed us a model with industrial production, human migration for economic prosperity and proprietary knowledge owned by the wealth creators.

However, in the coming years a more socially committed innovative business model (but also with great profits after tax!) might be showcased by India or any country with an emerging economy. I believe where there are more problems with fewer resources but with more creative heads to think about such problems, then innovation flourishes there. Nimbhkar Agricultual Research Institute (NARI) is a non profit research organization developing very low tech but promising bio-fuel technologies of the near future! http://nariphaltan.virtualave.net/

How do you measure innovation success?

This could be measured if we notice, high market share with high profits, growing and varied product line and very less engineering or technology input costs. For Example; Google and Coca Cola, these two companies have the lowest budget for their global intellectual property protection needs. And as I previously mentioned innovations are not always inventions and thus are not necessarily measured by patent strength, patent activity or trade mark portfolio.

What is a biggest pitfall that impedes successful innovation?

For a knowledge intensive business, to impede a successful innovation, a lack of either or both the factors of, Organizational culture and individual mindset of each and every of all the employees, (and not only the VPs and the chairman,) matter the most. In such a situation, everyone stops thinking as being the primary beneficiary from an innovative product or service launched into the market by their company. This employee isolation is not good for innovation. All R&D employees should think of themselves as a scientist and also as a marketer, all at the same time. A less rigid job role / hierarchy help in achieving this impediment.

What advantages does Honeywell gain from having a major global R&D lab now based in India?

Indian engineers, scientists and managers who had previously lived in foreign countries for their jobs or education are usually happy to work from the Indian soil, while still being associated with an R&D giant like Honeywell.

Thank you Suddha for sharing these insights with us.

Why Vancouver - The City's Surprising Rebirth as an Innovation Centre

Does Silicon Valley in California come to mind when I mention innovation? How about Boston or the Research Triangle in North Carolina?

How about Vancouver?

Traditionally a western outpost far from the major city centers of Toronto and Montreal, In Canada, Vancouver as often played second fiddle. Yes, it's a large metropolis but, compared to the large companies of Eastern Canada, Vancouver was a backwater devoted to mining and timber.

No Longer.

Increasingly fast growing high tech companies are locating major operations in Vancouver. Microsoft recently opened a new development center where software engineers and developers will work on over half of Microsoft's products. And of course, Vancouver is home to a thriving cleantech community.

Sure, Vancouver's proximity to high tech centers in Washington and California plays a part, but that's not the only reason. So, what makes Vancouver so special? The cost of living is high as compared to many Canadian and US cities. It's a long way from San Francisco and New York. It's not all that well known on the international scene, though that is changing.

Probably the better question is what makes any city good for innovation.

Jeffrey Chu, of Fast Company in a podcast discusses some of What Makes a City Fast. Chu cites a confluence of different factors including diversity and in migration. Both of which characterize Vancouver. He goes on, in a specific piece, Fast Cities - 2007 discussing Vancouver, that besides being named one of the world's most livable cities in a Mercer survey...

Its EcoDensity initiative aims to focus that growth by developing more crowded neighborhoods at the city center. The dual goal: to build sustainable neighborhoods with the scale to make green energy technologies affordable and to preserve surrounding forest and mountain ecosystems.

Our take is that Vancouver has much of what is needed to support thriving companies. Our diverse population brings an international flavor. Like many West Coast cities, proximity to the Far East and Far Eastern manufacturing centers has brought a highly educated foreign workforce to our shores. The relatively mild climate has made them stay, bringing diverse perspectives on life and on business, a key for successful innovation as we've mentioned in previous posts.

Vancouver's highly skilled workforce and established technology companies like Electronic Arts has attracted other and often younger workers to the city and created a cultural center with nightlife and activates that attract still more workers.

Vancouver's proximity to major tech centers in the US plays an important role as well as we've mentioned, but there's more. Canadian government support for development of newer, innovative industries and the spotlight that has turned to Vancouver, as host of the 2010 Olympic Games has encouraged companies to take another look at the city.

We believe that cities that are prepared to host innovation in the 21^st need to be diverse, green, creative and influential. Vancouver is certainly one of them.

10 Key Ingredients to Corporate Innovation

Yesterday in the midst of scanning a variety of articles on innovation, as I do on a regular basis, I came across this post on Now Europe listing the top eight, actually ten, attributes companies that successfully innovate share. I've summarized them below, but you can read the full article here.

1. Top management buy-in

If senior management do not buy into your innovation process, no one else will.

2. Budget

One of the most effective ways for senior management to buy into innovation is for them to allot budget for the initiative.

3. Communication

Once your initiative is ready to launch, it is critical that people know about it, what it is meant to accomplish and how they should participate.

4. Rewards

Complementing communications is a rewards scheme for participating in your innovation activities. Rewards should be relatively small and recognise participation rather than good ideas.

5. Dedicated Innovation People

Assign an individual, individuals or a team the mandate of managing your organisation's innovation strategy.

6. Collaborative Innovation Tools

Enterprises need collaborative tools. Each individual has her own tools and methods for creative thinking, but rather than demand the use of a particular personal creativity tool for all employees, firms should give employees the freedom to use the tools that work best for each person.

7. Effective Evaluation System

It is important that your evaluation process is not a purely critical one. It is easy for evaluators to find all the weak points in an idea. But this can result in very promising ideas being rejected. So, evaluators should be asked not merely to criticise ideas, but also to provide suggestions on overcoming the problems they have identified.

8. Willingness to Invest in Innovative Ideas

Surprisingly, many organisations invest in creativity and innovation tools, but then fail to implement the most innovative ideas they generate.This is usually the result of excessive risk aversion, large approval committees, too much internal bureaucracy or a combination of these. Whatever is the cause, the result is a creativity programme which generates ideas rather than an innovation strategy in which creative ideas are implemented.

9. Enthusiasm

.Enthusiasm encourages participation in the initiative, makes people feel good about their participation and tends to encourage more radical thinking. If employees know that their crazy ideas are enthusiastically welcomed, they are encouraged to push their creative thinking ever further.

10. Diversity

..., if your firm employees a wide range of people with different educational backgrounds, different kinds of experience and of different cultures, your firm will have the advantage of breadth of knowledge, experience and thinking. That results in a wider range of ideas and a higher level of creativity.

What I like about this list is that it covers a wide spectrum of necessary "ingredients" that will result in effective launches of great innovative products... over and over again. Too often companies manage to develop and launch an innovative new product in spite of their corporate culture rather than because of it.

Large companies often embark on an innovation campaign, throw a few creative people at it and railroad an idea through and, if they're lucky, the product is a success. But too often it IS luck that plays the largest role in the achievement, which makes the whole process... unrepeatable.

To create a true innovation machine a company needs to look closely at its culture and determine what changes need to be made to re-energize the business and direct it toward innovation. This isn't an overnight process, which may be why the most innovative companies tend to be those that are smaller, newer and have not yet developed the stagnant corporate culture that typifies large businesses on this side of the Atlantic... or perhaps everywhere.

Not to say that it isn't possible for a large company to become innovative. Many of the steps listed above are easy to implement and should be applied across the corporation. Others require wholesale change which may be a bit difficult in an established company. (Who wants to fire half the workforce and hire on new to meet point number 10, Diversity?)

Other changes may need to be made on a smaller scale in a separate operating unit, dedicated to innovation. Many organizations have found success this way. This strategy too will fail though if only lip service is paid to innovation in the larger corporation.

Every company needs to determine the best way to create an innovation strategy that works best with their particular challenges and within or at least compatible with their own corporate culture. We've helped clients from a variety of different segments to reach these goals by keeping this fact, and the 10 ingredients for innovation success, in mind.

Watching And Waiting For Early Adopters On Web 2.0

The credit for the explosion in Web 2.O companies goes to early adopters and Web 2.0 companies' ability to reach them. Unlike the Web 1.0 companies of the early part of the century which, diverse though they were, focused on one to one interaction with consumers, Web 2.0 companies focus on multi user platforms.

Web 1.0 companies were selling something; supplying something; providing something for individual users. Web 2.0 companies are providing platforms for users to create their own experience…with other users. Think Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, FriendsFeed, Flickr, blogs and wikis.

Early adopters, that is, the technologically savvy have played a big role in driving the popularity of these new companies. When you're a tech or Internet Company, your early adopters, the ones that eventually drive your business or sometimes are your whole business, are easy to find.

But there are ramifications of Web 2.0 and the companies it spawned for traditional companies, old line manufacturers, service providers and even offline retailers too. Web 2.0 companies have made it much, much easier for many traditional companies to find innovators and early adopters for their products and reach them with marketing messages...maybe.

While frequently early adopters are associated with technological products, the basis for the theory Everett Rogers developed that segments users across a bell curve based on how quickly they adopt innovations, is applicable to just about any category of product.

Two key challenges marketers face is finding and communicating with early adopters and crossing the chasm where momentum picks up and the product gains acceptance by the early majority. Web 2.0 solves both of these problems for many companies.

If you follow Lazarfeld and Katz' Two Step Flow Model, which goes something like this:

... mass media information is channeled to the "masses" through opinion leadership. The people with most access to media, and having a more literate understanding of media content, explain and diffuse the content to others.

You can see why the new way of communicating, creates a funnel which smart marketers can use to direct marketing messages to the wider market. Opinion leaders have always played a key role in the success or failure of new products. In the 21^st word of mouth marketing is becoming one of THE key strategies used to launch a product.

Seth Godin writes this week in The Myth of Launch PR (which by the way, I found when it popped up on Socialbrowse) about companies that passed on the big media spend usually associated with a new product launch: Starbucks, Apple, Nike, Harry Potter, Google, William Morris, The DaVinci Code, Wikipedia, Snapple, Geico, Linux, Firefox and yes, Microsoft. (All got plenty of PR, but after the launch, sometimes a lot later).

Many of those names you'll recognize because... someone told you how wonderful the product was. Today that's even easier and happens at a much faster speed through social networking sites, blogs and other Web2.0 companies.

Finding and exploiting that user or users that can spread the word about a new innovation, cheaply and quickly is the Holy Grail of marketers in the 21^st century. But, the quest is not without its challenges.

Social networks and book marking sites frequently rise and fall before anyone has a good grasp on the audience they serve. Unlike the mainstream media, potential reviewers are fickle. They agree then choose not to review a product. (OK, sometimes the mainstream media does this too, but less often.) They create a big presence and attract a large following ...then disappear because life gets in the way. They get lost in the shuffle overshadowed by tech savvy, early adopters of the Web 2.0 TECHNOLOGY.

Just as marketers scrambled to try to determine how most effectively use Web1.0 technology, we'll struggle with Web 2.0 in its nascent stage. We know that early adopters are much easier to find now…if we could only figure out how to locate them. :P

Burnaby Board of Trade's Know You Neighbours

1. Full name and position/title: Tatsuya Nakagawa, President and CEO

2. Company/Organization Name: Atomica Creative Group

3. Company website: www.atomicacreative.com

4. Education/Credentials:

University of San Francisco, University of British Columbia

5. Average meetings per month: 20

6. Name a skill or talent you possess that is not in your job description (i.e. marketing background; can speak 3 languages)

Tennis Coach and NCAA Division 1 Tennis Player

Brown Belt - Karate

7. What makes your job fun?

New and innovative products and technologies.

8. Personal Peeves?

Bad cell phone manners

9. Favourite quote?

"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."

- Thomas Edison

10. Name one person of influence who is in your professional network

Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple.

11. Who inspires you? Any mentors or role models?

Thomas Edison. Tiger Woods.

12. Imagine you had a working lunch with three prominent (or fictional) people.

Richard Branson, Virgin Group

Russell Simmons, Rush Communications

A.G. Lafley, P&G

13. Your favourite website is:

LinkedIn.com

14. Name one thing you cannot live without:

Family

15. List committees, organizations, or boards you sit on or have been a part of.

Burnaby Board of Trade, Board of Director

Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce, Former Director

BC Export Awards, Steering Committee

BC Supply Chain Career Network, Former Director

16. What are you currently reading? Any favourite books?

Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell

Innovators Dilemma, Clayton M Christensen

Unleashing the Idea Virus, Seth Godin

17. What would be the professional legacy you'd like to leave behind? (i.e. increase sales by 300%; make corporate social responsibility a natural business practice; introduce technology that changes our lives).

To help change the global corporate innovation success rate from 25% (currently) to over 50%.

Creativity at Work: Linda Naiman on turning ideas into reality

Our approach to innovation has been somewhat focused on the industrial side. We're always looking for ways to help innovators avoid pitfalls and apply processes to improve their returns from innovation activities. It hasn't been as inclusive of the creative aspects that we recognize are crucial to innovation.

To help bridge the gap, I approached Creativity at Work^TM founder Linda Naiman whose approaches toward innovation come from a different point of view. We've been in regular contact for the last 2 to 3 years, updating each other on our work. Linda was happy to share some insights as she is preparing for a creative leadership forum she is co-hosting in Vancouver from September 16-18 along with Ralph Kerle, CEO of the Creative Leadership Forum, Asia Pacific.

Linda has her own definition of creativity that ties in nicely with our approach that focuses on achieving predictable and measurable results from innovation activities. She defines creativity as "the act of turning new and imaginative ideas into reality. Creativity involves two processes: thinking, then producing. Innovation is the production or implementation of an idea. If you have ideas, but don't act on them, you are imaginative but not creative."

Here are Linda's responses to a few questions I asked her recently.

Who were your early role models and what were the main things you learned from them?

My earliest role models were my parents and art teacher in grade school. My parents both encouraged me to be an artist, my father took me to museums and cultural events, and from early childhood we engaged in lengthy discussions about art, life and politics with an emphasis on analysis and strategy. My mother was always an athlete and a naturalist and she gave me a taste for travel and adventure. My grade 5 art teacher, Fritz Brantner taught us to be Cubists, and through him I learned to think in the abstract, and find the essence of the subject matter at hand - a useful problem-solving skill.

What key trends do we need to be aware of?

Innovation, innovation, innovation. It's not just about R&D and new product development. A recent global study of CEOs conducted by IBM reveals that the scope of innovation spans the entire enterprise, but with a focus on the business model and the customer. 40 percent of CEOs report they are changing their enterprise models to be more collaborative, and the study reports extensive collaborators outperform their competitive peers. "Partnering has shifted from tactical 'Enter a new market' to strategic 'Access to capabilities'," explained one CEO from Hong Kong. Collaboration with external inventors and customers plays a key role in nearly 50 percent of P&G's products.

Social Networking is another trend. Flickr, Second Life, and YouTube, are pioneering a new form of collaborative production that will revolutionize markets and firms.

Innovation requires a change in management styles that must shift from a command-and-control model to one of designer and coach. Organizations world-wide are discovering the merits of artistic and creative training. The arts-based skills transfer directly transfer to management: how to take risks, what motivates people, and how to engage your audience. Companies like P&G and Unilever have brought art and design principles into the practice of management and leadership to increase market share.

What is an example of an innovative company that people have never heard of?

Three companies who provide an innovative service online: Seattle-based TeachStreet, helps Seattle-based teachers and students connect. Students can search for teachers across more than 25,000 courses and filter the results according to location, ratings from other students, teacher availability, promotional pricing and more.

San Francisco-based Carrotmob aims to organize consumers to provide an economic incentive to companies for making positive environmental changes. The group hopes to begin by creating a broad network of consumers and forming partnerships with other larger advocacy groups. Next, it plans to implement campaigns focusing on different industries. Carrotmob will then approach the companies in each industry with suggestions, and invite them to make the changes they have identified.

Toronto-based Parkingspots.com connects those who have parking spots to rent out with those who need them on a monthly basis.

How do you measure innovation or creative success?

Two possibilities are Michael Porter's Innovation Capacity Index, and Richard Florida's Global Creativity Index.

Michael Porter says, "Innovation intensity depends on an interaction between private sector strategies and public sector policies and institutions. Competitiveness advances when the public and private sectors together promote a favourable environment for innovation." United States is number one followed by Finland and Germany. Canada is 10^th on the list.

In the Flight of the Creative Class, Richard Florida outlines what he coins the Global Creativity Index, which captures the ability of a country to harness and mobilize creative talent for innovation, entrepreneurship, industry formation and long-run prosperity. It measures technology, talent and cultural tolerance. Top of the list is Sweden, followed by Japan, Finland, US and Switzerland.

We'd like to thank Linda for helping bridge the gap between creativity and measurable innovation results. This helps us turn great ideas into reality.

Innovation Under The Golden Arches - What is McDonald's Up To?

Idris Mootee often spots trends in innovation that have somehow have ended up under the radar of the mainstream media. His recent piece, McDonald's innovation in Europe, caught my eye because this latest move by McDonald's is less an iterative change or a nod to cultural differences than a wholesale rethinking of their overseas business and perhaps their worldwide business model.

What McDonald's is doing is (finally) catering specifically to the tastes of the countries in which they operate by offering such staples as porridge for breakfast in the U.K. and soup in France. Denis Hennequin, president of McDonald's Europe, the first non-American to hold the post, is behind all of these new innovative ideas and he has his chefs in Munich cooking up even more to come for the 41 European countries McDonald's Europe serves.

One wonders if this is a reaction to the increasingly skeptical way in which those around the world view all things American. Where once The USA was the golden land and all things American were lapped up with enthusiasm, a confluence of events in recent years has led to a healthier view of America and American companies' role in world affairs - that is as a player, not necessarily THE player.

Or perhaps the alarming rate of obesity with its loose links to consumption of fast food has provided the wake-up call. Either way, we're seeing fast food chains innovate in a variety of ways to combat this change in worldwide eating habits, competitive pressures and a recessionary climate.

While fast food chains in the US struggle with consumers tightening their pocketbooks, overseas McDonalds is taking a more innovative approach and perhaps they are once again leading the pack.

... the whole fast food industry is ripe for a complete makeover, not a botox job. It needs to redefine its customer experiences and take a hard look at what "fast food" means. Fast food doesn't need to be "junk food". I think everyone in the industry better start looking at what is needed to transform this industry.

In other ways, McDonalds is bringing a new customer experience to the fast food customer, though, perhaps lagging a bit behind popular chains like Starbucks. While fast food has long been a staple of budget minded young people. McDonalds is just now testing wireless internet access and linger-friendly environments with comfy seating and larger tables. Could McDonalds replace Starbucks as the "office away from the office" for the budget minded set?

Whether all of McDonalds new innovations take hold remains to be seen. The various scenarios being tested seem to focus on two trends - targeting and addressing the needs of a younger market... one more wired and more health conscious; and integrating McDonalds more into the culture of the countries in which it operates. Both are tried and true strategies, so in that way, the approach is not innovative. But as I have mentioned before, innovation isn't necessarily about "new to the world" inventions, but often is achieved by applying existing knowledge in a new way.

Why not spend money on a Patent?

Success rates for new products, including patented ones, are shockingly low. For even the world's largest and most sophisticated companies, the numbers are about 25% - certainly below what most managers and owners would like.

There are several references that give the failure rates for new product introductions. The normal range is typically from 70 to 80%. These sources include:

1. Various studies cited by Advertising Age,[i]
2. A study[ii] by Linton, Matysiak & Wilkes, Inc. of the top 20 food companies reviewing 1935 new products,
3. A Booz Allen Hamilton study[iii] on new product management that claims one out of seven product ideas yields a successful product,
4. Boston Consulting Group vice presidents and directors James Andrew and Kermit King claiming 60 to 85% in an article[iv] titled 'Boosting Innovation Productivity',
5. Some college textbooks[v] claim 80%.

A study[vi] by the Product Development and Management Association titled 'The PDMA Foundation's 2004 Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS)' shows 40% rather than the higher 70-80%. The PDMA figure appears to be based just on the post-commercialization or post-launch failure rate. It does not include all products that go into the development pipeline, rather just those that make it to the launch pad. Including all the steps from idea generation, the PDMA study failure rate is over 80%.

Companies stay alfloat because the products they sell, including new products, rarely rely on patented subject matter. Companies derive about a quarter of their sales and profits from new products, only some of which are patented. The other three quarters of a company's sales and profits come from yesterday's breadwinners that still have years left in their product life cycles.

So what happens if a company stops innovating? In most cases, it will slowly die. Companies operating in a competitive marketplace need to continually introduce new products or products that are better, faster, or cheaper in order to stay in business. They don't need to overdo it with innovations, but there is a need to have something in the works. Companies that are leaders in innovation become the pacesetters for the rest of the industry. The other players are forced to keep up or get knocked out of the never-ending race.

Another factor that stimulates the corporate innovation process is the tantalizing prospect of huge profits from world-beater innovations. For the few innovations that become blockbuster commercial hits, the rewards can be great. Companies that come up with such innovations and exploit them well can end up dominating their industry categories and raking in huge profits.

Does this mean small businesses need to come up with ideas and file patents on them? Let's look a little closer at the numbers as they apply to small businesses rather than Fortune 500 companies.

Only about one quarter (1/4) of the products that go into the development process end up being successful. This is a deplorably low figure that applies across a wide range of industries. The data comes mainly from well-established companies, typically the top ones in the various industries. In other words, one in four successes is currently accepted as the best that can be done in terms of converting ideas introduced to the development process into successful products.

What happens in the case of start-up companies? For these companies which are usually quite small, there is a whole other set of failure rate data involved. U.S. and Canadian statistics reveal that only about one third (1/3) to one half (1/2) of new companies remain in business for at least 3 to 5 years.[vii]^,[viii]. About a third of them make a profit during that time, another third break even and the remaining third lose money. Many of the companies that close their doors within the first few years do so because of business failures. Running a profitable business is obviously not easy.

Let's multiply the survival probability for a start-up company with the new product success probability. This makes the overall likelihood of success for a start-up company successfully developing and commercializing an invention or new product small. The math looks like (1/3 to 1/2) x 1/4 = 1/12 to 1/8 overall likelihood of success. Since the probabilities are not entirely mutually exclusive, the more forgiving 1/8 figure will be used. Determining what influence one of these variables might have over the other is beyond the scope of this article. In any event, a 1 in 8 or 12.5% chance of success seems somewhat risky which is why venture capitalists and finance people generally have a hard time dealing with start-up companies based on a new product idea. However, a well managed start-up company with a highly successful product can generate a phenomenal return.

From these numbers, it appears that the vast majority of patents are not worth the paper they are printed on. Here are five reasons a small business should look twice before calling a patent agent:

1. It usually costs between $5,000 and $20,000 to obtain a patent. These costs include the fees paid to the patent offices in one or more countries and those fees paid to the patent agents, many of whom are attorneys. These do not include the internal costs for having your key people sitting in the patent agent's office or working on the patenting aspects.

2. It normally takes about two or three years to obtain the patent and can take much longer if there are problems. Some innovations become worthless in three years, much less than the 15 to 20 years covered by a typical patent.

3. A patent gives a complete disclosure as part of the requirement for obtaining it. In other words, your competitors know exactly what you are doing and how you are doing it. This is especially so with recent changes to the U.S. patent rules that publicly disclose the entire contents of the applications 18 months after application, regardless of how long it takes for the application to get processed.

4. Most patents don't offer any real protection since they are often narrowly defined and easily circumvented.

5. The patents become extremely expensive when they become litigated. Usually the patent owner is the one who initiates the litigation. This is because, in practice, a patent is little more than a right for the patent holder to sue an infringing competitor. These costs can run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. After years of expensive and complex litigation, the infringer often does not end up paying much, if anything, to the patent owner.

Spending the same time, money and effort on your up front marketing would be a much better approach for most small businesses. Up front marketing does not include promotional and sales expenses but does include going out to determine what the real market is for the proposed or actual product. It includes focus group testing, trial selling, surveys, tradeshows, etc.

Look before you leap when you have an idea that might be patentable. At least you should do the math first.

Peter Paul Roosen has an engineering background and is co-founder of Atomica Creative Group , a specialized strategic product marketing firm. He has co-authored Overcoming Inventoritis: The Silent Killer of Innovation now available.

---

[i] Brock, D. (1997). Getting the most out of your new product introductions. Partners in Excellence. http://www.excellenc.com/articles.htm

[ii] Linton, D.B. (1997, July 1). Market study results released: new product introduction success, failure rates analyzed. Frozen Food Digest 12(5), 76.

[iii] Dean, B. (2005, March 28). Case study: Incorporating focus group research into the product development process. DM News, Article 32310. www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/e-commerce/32310.html

[iv] Andrew, J.P. & King, K. (2003, April). Boosting innovation productivity. BCG opportunities for action, April 2003. http://www.bcg.com/publications/publication_view.jsp?pubid=847

[v] Friedman, H.H. (2000). Product policy; new product development. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/economic/friedman/mmproductpolicy.htm

[vi] Adams, M. & Boike, D. (2004, July). PDMA foundation CPAS study reveals new trends. Visions, XXVIII:3, 26-29; and: The PDMA Foundation’s 2004 comparative performance assessment study (CPAS). PDMA Foundation. www.pdma.org/cpas.php

[vii] Knaup, A.E. (2005, May 1). Survival and longevity in the business employment dynamics data. Monthly Labour Review 128:5, 50-57.

[viii] Baldwin, J., Bian, L., Dupuy, R., Gellatly, G., Statistics Canada (2000, February). Failure rates for new Canadian firms: New perspectives on entry and exit. Minister of Industry / Statistics Canada