r&d+i international benchmark · r&d+i international benchmark–a research study conducted...

R&D+I INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK

A Research Study conducted for Inova-Ria by Digitalflow

December 2013

Project Team and Authors: Rui Patrício, Andrei Moraru, António Rocha, Catarina Garcia, José Cordeiro, Marcos Ribeiro, Miguel Soares and Ricardo Costa.

R&D+I INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARK–A Research Study conducted for Inova-Ria by Digitalflow

December 2013

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Innovation Management ____________________________________________________________________ 8

2.2 Study Objectives ___________________________________________________________________________ 8

2.3 Research Method ___________________________________________________________________________ 9

3 Key Players ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Vendors ___________________________________________________________________________________ 11

3.2 Regulation, Governance and Supporting Organisations _______________________________________ 14

4 Models and Frameworks ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Type of Models and Frameworks ____________________________________________________________ 19 4.1.1 The Evolution of IM Frameworks ............................................................................................................................................ 19 4.1.2 The Interactive Channel Model ............................................................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Final Remarks _____________________________________________________________________________ 27

5 Software Applications ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 28

5.1 Ideation ___________________________________________________________________________________ 28 5.1.1 Spigit ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.1.2 Lithium Ideas .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.3 Idea Management Software ....................................................................................................................................................... 29 5.1.4 Innocentive@work .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29 5.1.5 PIT - Innovation Factory ............................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.6 Innovation Suite - BrightIdea .................................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.7 IHS Goldfire - Invention Machine ......................................................................................................................................... 30 5.1.8 BrainBankinc ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.9 Imaginatik´s Software ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31 5.1.10 Hype Innovation .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31 5.1.11 IdeaScale ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32 5.1.12 Final Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 32


December 2013

3

5.2 Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation _______________________________________________________ 33 5.2.1 Crowdicity ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34 5.2.2 Hypios .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 5.2.3 IdeaConnection .................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 5.2.4 Ideaken ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 5.2.5 InnoCentive ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 35 5.2.6 Innoget ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 5.2.7 NineSights ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35 5.2.8 Sophia .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 5.2.9 Final Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 36

5.3 Strategy & Assessment ____________________________________________________________________ 37 5.3.1 Innovator’s DNA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 5.3.2 Impr3ove .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 5.3.3 Innovation Scoring by Cotec ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 5.3.4 Strategos ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 5.3.5 ADL – Health Check ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43 5.3.6 Final Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

5.4 Intellectual Property _______________________________________________________________________ 44 5.4.1 Anaqua ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44 5.4.2 CPA Global .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 5.4.3 Decipher ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45 5.4.4 DIAMS iQ .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46 5.4.5 IPfolio ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46 5.4.6 IP Portfolio 5 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.7 Lecorpio ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.8 Patrawin Enterprise ........................................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.9 Thomson IP Manager ...................................................................................................................................................................... 47 5.4.10Unycom IPMS ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 5.4.11 Final Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

5.5 Technology & Market Intelligence __________________________________________________________ 49 5.5.1 AMI Enterprise Intelligence ........................................................................................................................................................ 50 5.5.2 Digimind Intelligence & Digimind Social .......................................................................................................................... 50 5.5.3 IQ Intelligence Suite ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50 5.5.4 Knowledge.Works Enterprise ...................................................................................................................................................... 51


December 2013

4

5.5.5 Final Remarks ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 51

5.6 Knowledge & Collaboration ________________________________________________________________ 52 5.6.1 Confluence .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 5.6.2 Basecamp ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53 5.6.3 Centroy ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53 5.6.4 Final Remarks ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

6 Best Practices and Capabilities ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55

6.1 Clusters ___________________________________________________________________________________ 55 6.1.1 Fundamentals ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 55 6.1.2 Øresund – Cluster 55° - Sweden and Denmark. ..................................................................................................... 56 6.1.3 AEI Seguridad – Leon – Spain ................................................................................................................................................ 57 6.1.4 Silicon Valley – San Francisco Bay – US. ....................................................................................................................... 58

6.2 Innovation Management Survey ____________________________________________________________ 60 6.2.1 About the Survey ............................................................................................................................................................................... 60 6.2.2 Results .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 6.2.3 Final remarks ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 67

7 Trends and Business Opportunities .......................................................................................................................................................... 68

7.1 Top markets/regions ______________________________________________________________________ 68

7.2 Top Industries / Customers _________________________________________________________________ 71

7.3 Top Spending by Industry __________________________________________________________________ 73

7.4 Growth outlook for products and services ___________________________________________________ 76

8 International Positioning Strategies ............................................................................................................................................................ 78

8.1 Degree of Turbulence ______________________________________________________________________ 78

8.2 Entry Barriers for ICT companies ___________________________________________________________ 80

9 Main Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82

9.1 Research Questions _______________________________________________________________________ 82

9.2 Vendor Selection Criteria __________________________________________________________________ 82

9.3 Markets and Locations _____________________________________________________________________ 82

9.4 Industries and Customers __________________________________________________________________ 83


December 2013

5

9.5 Products and Services _____________________________________________________________________ 83

9.6 State-of-the-art IM software applications ___________________________________________________ 83

9.7 State-of-the-art IM models and frameworks ________________________________________________ 84

9.8 Clusters Experience _______________________________________________________________________ 84

9.9 The Voice of the Customer _________________________________________________________________ 84

9.10 International positioning strategies for Portuguese ICT companies ________________________ 84

9.11 Innovation Management (IM) - Market Overview ________________________________________ 85

Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 86

Index of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88

Index of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89

Contact ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90


December 2013

6

1 Executive Summary

The R&D+I International Benchmark study was conducted for Inova-Ria - Associac ̧a ̃o de Empresas para uma Rede de Inovac ̧a ̃o em Aveiro (Inova-Ria) by Digitalflow (an expert firm with a strong focus on Strategic Innovation Management). It was supported by Projecto Alvos Estratégicos (23285 - SIAC PAE) and co-funded by QREN-EU.

In this study, R&D+I was defined as Innovation Management (IM) that is the discipline of managing processes to develop the product/service, process, marketing and organisational innovation.

The overall purpose of the study was to generate critical knowledge on key IM players (vendors, products and services, markets/regions, industries/clients) that can support Portuguese ICT Companies in their decision-making concerning external market positioning strategy.

The project team achieved its goals since all the researched questions were answered and important information was gathered and delivered. The key findings are:

Products, services and frameworks:

The core solutions for supporting the innovation process are to be found in the area of Strategy and Assessment, Idea Management (both generation and execution), Knowledge & Collaboration, Technology & Market Intelligence, Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).

The concepts that will acquire greater importance in the near future are Open Collaboration, Reverse Innovation, Gamification or Game Mechanics and Customer Insight.

The Open Innovation model is currently the most popular amongst vendors.

Vendors and markets:

More than half of the vendors (from the selected sample of 150 for this study) have their head offices in the USA or Canada. Vendors with head offices in European countries account for 42%.

Mapping the markets where these vendors also have international branches (moving from a national to a global distribution), only a third have their head offices and international branches in the USA and/or Canada. In this new setting, European countries account for nearly half whilst the rest of the world – South America, Japan, Australia, Singapore, China – account for almost 15%.

The major vendors are mature and innovative firms that come from the most competitive and knowledge intensive world regions.

Industries:

Computing and Electronics, and Healthcare are the industries that draw the most interest in both R&D+I spending and industry distribution (customers of IM software and services).

Of the USD 638bn that The Global Innovation 1000 companies (from the 2013 Booz & Company’s study) spent on R&D+I, around USD 52bn (8%) was allocated to procuring, deploying, and supporting digital enablers (which represents the core IM software applications).


December 2013

7

Voice of the customer:

It is essential to define an innovation strategy amongst all stakeholders whilst at the same time ensuring that it is aligned with organisational goals and the medium and long-term vision.

One of the most expected features in IM software is user friendliness, adaptability to the business context and the possibility to share knowledge throughout the company in an efficient manner.

International IM Market Positioning:

Portuguese ICT companies are well advised to secure stable means of financing, to have flexibility within their operating structures, and to consider diversification for risk reduction.

Portuguese ICT companies need to have a clear understanding of their operating environment in order to respond to forces of change proactively according to the business and/or strategic plan or respond reactively if the situation has not been previously considered in the planning process.

In terms of the structure of report, chapter 1 is dedicated to the presentation of the research questions and the approach followed to achieve the results. Chapter 2 defines vendor profiles and gives a brief description of other key players like supporting and funding organisations, as well as a comparison of the leading IM standards. Models, evolution of frameworks and trends are described in chapter 3. Chapter 4 provides a description and comparative analysis of the most relevant software applications in the IM market. The voice of the customer and the experience of three ICT clusters are presented in chapter 5 (best practices and capabilities). In chapter 6 is it possible to find a description of the main trends and business opportunities regarding markets, industries and new products and services. Chapter 7 gives important insights on market positioning strategies. The report ends with the main conclusions presented in chapter 8.

After reading this report, it will be possible to have a better understanding of the emergent IM market with strong insights of its most important challenges and opportunities.


December 2013

8

2 Introduct ion

2.1 Innovation Management

According to Wikipedia, Innovation Management (IM) is the discipline of managing processes in innovation. It can be used to develop both product/service, process, marketing and organisational innovation. Innovation management includes a set of tools that allows managers and engineers to cooperate with a common understanding of goals and processes. The focus of IM is to allow the organization to respond to an external or internal opportunity, and use its creative efforts to introduce new ideas, processes or products (Kelly, P. and Kranzburg M., 1978).

Importantly, IM is not relegated to R&D; it involves workers at every level in contributing creatively to a company's development, manufacturing, and marketing. By utilizing appropriate IM tools, management can trigger and deploy the creative juices of the whole work force towards the continuous development of a company (Clark, Charles H., 1980).

The process can be viewed as an evolutionary integration of organisation, technology and market by iterating series of activities: search, select, implement and capture (Tidd, Joe and Bessant, John., 2009).

Innovation processes can either be pushed or pulled through development. A pushed process is based on existing or newly invented technology, that the company/organisation has access to, and tries to find profitable applications to use this technology. A pulled process tries to find areas where customer needs are not met, and then focuses development efforts to find solutions to meet those needs (Trott, Paul, 2005).

To succeed with either method, an understanding of both the market and the technical problems is needed. By creating multi-functional development teams, containing engineers and marketers, both dimensions can be solved (Boutellier, Roman; Gassmann, Oliver and von Zedtwitz, Maximilian, 2000).

The lifetime (or product lifecycle) of new products is steadily getting shorter; increased competition therefore forces companies to reduce the time to market. Innovation managers must therefore shorten development time, without sacrificing quality or failure meeting market needs.

Innovation Management (IM) is the discipline of managing processes in innovation. It can be used to develop both product/service, process, marketing and organizational innovation.

2.2 Study Object ives

The goal of this benchmark study is to target the most representative R&D+I (Research, Development and Innovation), a synonym for Innovation Management (IM), key international market players. This study is intended to generate critical knowledge on IM players (vendors, products and services, markets / regions, industries / clients) that can support Portuguese ICT Companies in their decision-making concerning external market positioning strategy.


December 2013

9

In order to successfully answer this main question, secondary questions were addressed. Therefore, the design of this research study focused on the following questions:

Which are the most representative R&D+I models, frameworks, tools and software?

Which regions/countries should be traced in more detail?

What are the lessons learned and what practices can be adopted?

2.3 Research Method

Different types of data were identified for this research study.

Primary data sample research method (see figure 1) consisted of Customers/Users (Portuguese as well as International) of R&D+I frameworks and software – survey respondents.

Figure 1 . Primary Data

Secondary data (see figure 2) collection was done primarily from certified and official sources.

a) Company/Organisation websites

b) International directories / websites

c) International institutions (e.g. OECD, EU, etc.)

d) Credited articles and market & technology reports

Primary Data

1. Determine

the research sample

2. Create the interview outline

3. Gather

the data

4. Analyze the data

5. Create the

final report


December 2013

10

Figure 2 . Secondary Data

Secondary Data

1. Determine the data

need 2.

Collect data

3. Centralize collected

data

4. Analyze the

data

5. Final

Report / Conclusion


December 2013

11

3 Key Players

This first chapter will provide an analysis of the most important players (Vendors, Regulation, Governance and Supporting Organisations) that influence the Innovation Management market (IM market). It will present an overview of the international IM market and will serve as the basis for this research study.

3.1 Vendors

The research sample has been determined primarily by using web-based research methods (such as websites, group and discussion forums, amongst others - as explained in the research method). The term “Vendor” was adopted to describe organizations (companies, online platforms and other entities) that supply/provide services and products in the IM market.

In order to qualify as a Vendor in the IM market, an organisation must satisfy at least one of the following two conditions:

a) It offers IM Software-based applications – software applications that are currently involved in IM processes (such as Ideation, IPR Management, Market Intelligence, Innovation Strategy, etc.) and online platforms (such as tech scouting and transfer, ideas marketplaces, etc.). These Vendors focus their efforts on software features and support services (such as configuration, customization, training and support for using the software).

b) It offers IM Consultancy and Coaching – training (face-to-face, blended or e-learning), coaching or other direct methods that help customers develop, implement and manage IM processes. The use of IM software applications is not mandatory for these services.

The end result of the web-based research was a sample of over 150 vendors that fulfilled the above-mentioned criteria.

These vendors were selected mainly because of their visibility on the web and on social networks (for example: whitepapers, discussion forums, webinars, specialized directories and rankings). Additional information collected from IM customers and other key players also influenced this selection. For the purpose of this study, this sample was considered to be illustrative of IM vendors worldwide.

The sample of 150 vendors was divided into 3 distinct profiles:

Software : Pure Software Vendors are companies that develop their own software applications and deliver support services. They are typically software houses with a network of commercial and implementation service partners.

Services : Pure Services Vendors are companies that provide a wide range of services (such as consultancy, coaching and training services). They are typically consultancy companies that are independent of software houses (even if they are partners in some IM applications).


December 2013

12

Software and Serv ices : These vendors are companies that develop end-to-end solutions with both software applications and consultancy services. They typically come from the software industry but integrate consultancy services within their market offer.

Figure 3 . Vendor Profile

Amongst the 150 IM Vendors selected, nearly half provide mainly Software Applications in the above-mentioned fields, more than a third provide IM Consultancy Services and 20% explicitly provide both Software Applications and Consultancy Services.

45%

35%

20%

Vendor Profiles

Software 45% Services 35% Both 20%


December 2013

13

The following table lists examples of vendors for each profile:

Prof i les Vendors

Serv ices or iented Desai Group Cambridge Consultants Fahrenheit 212

Software or iented Bright Idea Innovation Factory (PIT) Eyeka

Software + Serv ices Hype Venture Spirit Kalypso

Table 1 . Examples of vendors

The above selection of vendors does not reflect any ranking or performance evaluation. Since the main goal was to present a diverse perspective of vendors, these were chosen because of their different characteristics (innovation management approaches, geographic origin and industries served).

Desai Group focused only on Consultancy Services. It was selected because it clearly advocates open innovation.

Cambridge Consultants is primarily focused on Health and Medical Consultancy Services which make it stand out from the rest.

Fahrenheit 212’s expert recognition and diverse customer portfolio that ranges from Food and Beverages to Electronics with a customer-base that includes the likes of Coca-Cola and Samsung makes it worthy of a mention.

Bright Idea – described in more detail in subsequent topics, was chosen because its recently released “Most ambitious release yet” consists in approaching their own software from a new angle adding cutting edge features like “Idea Board™, WebStorm Scheduler™, etc.

Innovation Factory (PIT) is a website that is easy to access and read, thereby making it a vendor worthy of being selected.

Eyeka is an open innovation idea market website, the only one in the current list.

Hype is a vendor that offers software applications and full-featured services. Its eleven years experience makes it a vendor to be taken into consideration.

Venture Spirit and Kalypso offer both services and software solution to a number of industries, making them equally worthy of mention.


December 2013

14

3.2 Regulat ion, Governance and Support ing Organisat ions

Several entities, private, non-profit or public, promote the development of innovation management (IM) capabilities of organisations for sustainable development.

The European Commission is one of the entities that, through capital grants or support initiatives, promote innovation practices and projects. The 2nd European Innovation Convention that will take place on 10-11 March 2014 in the Square - Brussels Meeting Centre is an example. This convention is included in the "Innovation Union" which is one of seven initiatives strategies under "Europe 2020". The Europe 2020 strategy is another example, aimed at creating a sustainable economy with investments in education, research and innovation. It intends to become a competitive, ecological and streamline employment and poverty reduction industry. This strategy focuses on five ambitious objectives: employment, research, education, poverty reduction, and climate and energy.

In general, all access initiatives to finance "Horizon 2020" aim to ensure that innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create growth and jobs. Whatever the company strategy it should be directed at the creation of added value and the establishment of partnerships because only then can it begin to consider the possibility of obtaining financing at Europe - Horizon 2020. Inevitably, there will also be national programmes that will permit access to investment incentives more appropriate to local realities.

The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) is a tool to support SMEs during the period 2014-2020, targeting businesses, employees and citizens. COSME will improve SMEs’ access to finance through two separate programmes: credit guarantees and capital for growth. The following website can identify hypotheses to support financing with the participation of EU funds (http://europa.eu/youreurope/business/funding-grants/access-to-finance/).

Also under the European Commission directives, innovation vouchers have been detected in several European countries: Portugal, Netherlands, Czech Republic, UK and Ireland. However, not all countries offer the same access conditions or purposes. This programme is aimed at the creation and development of start-ups (up to EUR 5.000), and also programmes for the competitiveness and sustainability of companies (up to EUR 25.000). Singapore is another country which uses innovation vouchers funding schemes.

The sustainable development of organisations is also supported by entities that promote the implementation of best IM practices through the development of standards.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) promotes sustainable development through the promotion of economic and social policies to foster the growth of many countries, especially those which are members. The creation and dissemination of knowledge and the promotion of innovation practices are available on the OECD website, as well as many other research topics.

The European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) was officially established as an international non-profit association based in Brussels. CEN is a major provider of European Standards and technical specifications. The Technical Committee (CEN / TC 389), which is responsible for drafting normative documents related to the Management of Innovation, developed several standards on innovation, some are still in draft form and others were posted, like CEN / TS 16555-1, Innovation Management - Part 1: Innovation Management System.

This Technical Committee (TC389) comprises several working groups on: Design Thinking, Intellectual Property Management, Strategic Intelligence Management, Collaboration and Creativity Management, Innovation Management System, Innovation Self Assessment Tools.


December 2013

15

This European Technical Specification - CEN / TS 16555-1, 2013, defines IM practices as a planning process, implementation, verification and improvement of the management of ideas as the main entrance to the innovation process, which includes development, knowledge management and sale or implementation of the result. This set of best practices begins upon confirmation of the organisation's strategy, is based on risk assessment and involves a demand cycle for improved performance obtained through innovation.

In existence for a longer period, the Portuguese standard (NP4457:2007, Management system requirements of R&D+I) as well as the Spanish standard (UNE 166002 - R&D+I: Requirements Management RD, 2006), presents a set of best practices based on research and development including the launch of the product in market and its follow-up. As a management system standard it includes the usual requirements related to management responsibility, resources and improvement.

There are other normative documents:

The British Standard 7000-1:2008 is essentially a standard to simplify and manage a culture of innovation in a company. It presents a methodology which is divided into several sequential steps aimed at ensuring the organisation's development and disseminat ion of a culture of innovat ion .

Brazilian ABNT NBR 16501:2011 - Guidelines for Management Systems R&D+I is included in a set of three standards (concepts, system management and R&D+I projects). They were not introduced to regulate contractual issues thus they have no requirements and are not intended for certification.

NWA - 1:2009 - a guide to good practices in innovation and the development process, developed by NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland). It describes innovation activities from strategy creation to market launch.

The Mexican Standard NMX GT 003:2008 follows a simple pattern for a management system focused on process management technology - the technology makes no reference to research, development and innovation.

Many other countries are working on normative documents related to innovation. Germany and France have already published standards whilst others are still in the design stage:

DIN 77100:2001 - Patent valuation - General principles for monetary patent valuation.

FD X50-146:2010 - Management de l'Innovation - Management de la propriété intellectuelle.

PR FD X50-274: Innovation Management - Creativity management (August 2015).

PR FD X50-273: Implementation of sustainable development in the innovation process (January 2015).

PR FD X50-272: Guidelines for the implementation of open innovation (April 2014).

Some associations or private sector organisations, particularly in the consultancy sector, have also contributed to the development of practices aimed at managing innovation, excellence and sustainable development. For instance, PDMA - Product Development and Management Association has developed initiatives, events and documents of best practices for conducting research, development and innovation.

These documents highlighted the TIM-PD -STD - 001: 2013 Standard Innovation Management.


December 2013

16

These suggestions are not limited to the issuing of documents but also at events that promote creativity, new product development, management, dissemination of knowledge and innovation.

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is the world's largest developer of international standards. However, despite ISO’s active participation in events promoting innovation (Committee ISO / TC 279 Innovation process: interaction, tools and methods), it was not possible to obtain formal confirmation concerning ISO’s involvement in drafting new rules on innovation management.

In general, the above-mentioned standards have different requirements for managing the innovation management system. The description of these implementation requirements is not identical in all the standards since they follow different methodologies and approaches. Comparisons at the requirement level are presented in the following table:

Requirements for R&D+I activities that are referred to in the various Standards

NP 4

457:2

007

CEN/

TS 16

555-

1:201

3

UNE

1660

02:2

006

TIM

-PD-

001-

STD:

2013

NMX

GT

003:

2008

Leadership

R&D+I Policy

R&D+I Objectives

Management Review

Top Management Representative

R&D+I Unit

Interested Parties

External and Internal Analysis

Risks and Opportunities

Interface Management

Creativity


December 2013

17

Idea Management

Finances Resources

Human Resources

Infrastructures

Communication

Process Management

Purchasing

Planning of R&D+I Projects

Requirements for R&D+I Project

Research, Development and Innovation Management Activities

Knowledge Management

Control of Documents and Records

Results Evaluation

Internal Audits

Improvement

Table 2 . Requirements for R&D+I

This comparison between the requirements of the different standards for an IM system, developed by separate entities in a time period of about 6 years, allows us to highlight the existence of similar structures in terms of requirements related to Management Responsibility, Planning, Implementation, Analysis and Improvement. The differences reside in the fact that the requirements are developed separately.


December 2013

18

In this regard, attention is drawn to the following features:

the importance attributed to leadership in the most recent standards (CEN / TS 16555-1:2013 and TIM-PD-STD-001: 2013).

the relevance attributed by UNE 166002:2006 to the creation of an IM structure.

the risk management mentioned in CEN/TS 16555-1:2013.

the reference made by UNE 166002:2006 to supplies.

the importance of process management (CEN/TS 16555-1:2013 and TIM-PD-STD-001: 2013) and

the applicable requirements for R&D+I projects (CEN/TS 16555-1:2013 and UNE 166002:2006).


December 2013

19

4 Models and Frameworks

4.1 Type of Models and Frameworks

Before diving into the usage of Innovation Management frameworks (IM frameworks) and tools, it is necessary to briefly describe the latest evolution of IM frameworks.

4 .1 .1 The Evolut ion of IM Frameworks

The importance of Innovation has been widely recognised by both Academic and Business circles for a long time now. However, in the more recent past, companies and universities have focused increasingly on innovation.

Vendors have started to create IM products and services for other companies and organisations. Also, universities like Hamburg Univ. of Technology (Germany), Aalborg University (Denmark), Swimburne University (Australia), amongst others, now offer specialised IM Bachelor and Masters programs (Attended by a growing number of international students).

It is increasingly easier to find literature and studies on IM and IM Processes. The main interest is the IM process, from idea creation to product commercialization (Niek D du Preez & Louis Louw, 2008). IM frameworks have evolved in 6 directions, creating distinct frameworks as presented in the following table.

Generat ion Model Descr ipt ion

#1 Technology Push The Plain Linear sequential process focuses on R&D.

#2 Market Pull The Linear sequential process places emphasis on the market since it considers it the main source of R&D.

#3 Coupling Model The Looping model focuses on the interaction between different entities. Integration between R&D and the market is a primary objective here.

#4 Interactive Model The Interactive Model is a combination of the push and pull models. It focuses on the links between the company and its external environment.

#5 Network Model The Network Model concentrates on knowledge gathering, external links and accentuated networking.

#6 Open Innovation The Open Innovation Model focuses on the combination of internal and external environments, and how their interaction can create technological development.

Table 3 . Evolution of Innovation Management Frameworks


December 2013

20

An in-depth description of each IM Generation and Model follows:

Generat ion #1 – The Technology Push Model4

The first generation of IM frameworks has a linear structure and is based on the idea that innovation is driven or pushed by technology development.

Technology Push is a business strategy where innovation is pushed through R&D, production and sales without considering the existence of the initial need for that specific product and/or service.

Figure 4 . Technology Push Model

The weakest link in this chain of activities is the last one. The fact that the need for a specific product or service is uncertain (there is no evidence that the need exists in the market) is considered to be the biggest flaw of this framework. In some cases it can work – if the product itself creates a new need in the market, for example, the iPad in 2010.

Generat ion #2 - The Market Pul l Model

Like the first generation of IM frameworks, the second generation is also a linear structure model. Whereas the first model does not take into account the initial need of the market, this second generation is mainly focused on this particular area. It is the market need that pulls innovation, as depicted in the following figure.

Figure 5 . Market Pull Model

However, the needs of the customer may change over time and get to the point where the needs, at the time you actually start the marketing and sales plan, no longer resemble the initial market need. Here, you end up with an obsolete product even before you are ready to sell it.

R&D Production Sales / Marketing Need?

Market Need Development Production Sales


December 2013

21

Generat ion #3 - The Coupl ing Model

Compared to the two previous models, which were linear, the third model has a looping / coupling structure. This model makes the basic assumption that innovation does not simply come from Technology Push or Market Pull alone, but is rather a combination and a matching between the two.

Although this model is not linear it is still sequential, presenting feedback loops between the elements of the framework. Through using this model, companies have begun migrating from individual projects in R&D to projects that couple marketing and R&D.

Figure 6 is an example of a Third Generation Innovation Management Model (A framework for managing the innovation process, 2008, Niek D du Preez & Louis Louw).

Figure 6. Coupling Model

As shown, both R&D and the market play an equal role. The focus point is the correlation between the two.

Apart from the Coupling Model, one of the best known and most used IM models is the Stage-Gate Model (see figure 7) created by Robert G. Cooper. (Cooper, RG, 1990, http://www.prod-dev.com/stage-gate.php).

This particular IM model has the characteristic of splitting the innovation process into Stages with Gates having the primary goal of offering a structured and well-organised flow to any given project.


December 2013

22

Figure 7 . Stage-Gate Model

Generat ion #4 - The Interact ive Model

The fourth generation model is called the Interactive Model. This model sees the innovation process as a series of separate, parallel activities with different functions in a company.

Figure 8 is an example of a Fourth Generation Innovation Management Model (A framework for managing the innovation process, 2008, Niek D du Preez & Louis Louw).

Figure 8 . Interactive Model

Generat ion #5 - The Network Model

The Network Model is a more recent model, developed in the 1990s, which focuses on the importance of the external environment and its influence on the innovation process. The effectiveness of the communication channels with the external environment is critical for this model.


December 2013

23

Trott states that innovation happens within a network, containing both internal and external stakeholders, thus it is important to create connections between these two main contexts as well as between the stakeholders within each of them. (Trott, P, 2005)

Figure 9 is an example of IM framework that falls under the Network Model (Trott, P. (2005): Innovation Management and New Product Development).

Figure 9 . Network Model

Another IM model that falls under the fifth generation is The Creative Factory Systems Innovation Model proposed by Kostas Galanakis. This model was developed with systematic thinking in mind, as can be seen in Figure 10 (Galanakis, K, 2002).


December 2013

24

Figure 10 . The Creative Factory Systems

In this model, Galanakis centres the whole framework on the company, considering it the generator and promoter of innovation in the market, the industrial sector and the nation (A framework for managing innovation, 2008, Niek D du Preez).

As observed, the Core Innovation Process is the main focus of this model. It is constructed by acquiring knowledge, through research, of the public and industrial levels. Knowledge is then transformed into a New Product through New Product Design and Development. However, the product’s success in the market must also be mentioned. This success is determined by both the product’s competencies and the organisation’s competencies.


December 2013

25

These will influence how it is placed in the market and also its price level. Further, as can be observed in the model, there are two environments or systems that influence the innovation process: the Internal Environment and the National Environment (External Environment).

The Internal Environment is represented by the organisation’s internal strategy: Organisational Structure, Technological Capabilities, Corporate Strategy or even the creativity of the company’s employees. Within the National Environment, the entities that can influence a company’s innovation process are law regulators, the financial system or the country’s infrastructure. (Galanakis, K, 2002) Although these five generations are all different, they have one thing in common: the models are all closed systems.

Generat ion #6 – The Open Innovat ion Model

The most recent IM generation model is the Open Innovation (see figure 11, source: Henry Chesbrough, 2004). Its promoter is widely considered to be Henry Chesbrough who first introduced the concept of Open Innovation in 2003.

Figure 11 . The Open Innovation Model

This new concept of innovation embraces the philosophy that employees are not necessarily the most creative or the best suited to do a certain task; there are also great people outside one’s company which can be used to generate resources for that particular company. The main benefit of using an Open Innovation framework is that results potentially emerge faster than when using traditional IM. Open Innovation is all about multidirectional collaboration channels with vendors, customers, partners, etc.

4 .1 .2 The Interact ive Channel Model

It is mandatory to mention and discuss a framework that is presently being used in Portugal (se figure 12), the Multi-Channel Interactive Learning Model (João Caraça, Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Sandro Mendonça, 2009). The purpose for this model stems from the desire of its authors to update, complement and extend the perspective of the innovation phases used in previous models.


December 2013

26

Figure 12 . The Interactive Chain Model

Like the other IM frameworks, this one is centred at the company level and considers the company as the major generator of economic innovation (João Caraça et. al, 2009). This model does not mention what is the first step towards innovation. Therefore, it can be assumed that innovation, according to this particular model, can start anywhere (João Caraça et al, 2009).

Working from the exterior and moving towards the interior whilst analysing each layer of innovation, the first innovation layers consist of two entities: the Micro-Environment and the Macro-Environment.

The Micro-environment is represented by actors and other companies and organisations that can influence the company’s innovation process (João Caraça et al, 2009) whereas the Macro-environment is represented by social factors, political institutions and regulators.

The next 2 layers reflect the Existing Knowledge and the Prospective Knowledge that can be collected through research. Both Existing and Potential Knowledge refer to: technology, business (methods, tools) and the market.

Strongly connection to the Knowledge layers is the Interface layer, considered a significant feature by the authors. These “channels of interpretation” enable the company to identify, select and absorb new ideas from its environment, from other entities and from the knowledge layers (W.M. Cohen, 1990).

The last layer is the Core Innovation layer. This is where the innovation process takes place and services and/or goods are developed.


December 2013

27

4.2 Final Remarks

It should be noted that each company and market is unique and thus no magic recipe exists for the perfect IM Model. No company can merely copy another company’s approach, even if it is a successful one, because it may not apply to its situation. This is the reason why many companies, which offer IM services today, have developed their own framework by adapting to the market and to their customers.

In order to assess the application of these models, the frameworks used by the sampled 150 vendors were studied. The information pertaining to each vendor’s framework usage was taken from their respective websites as well as sources like white papers and public statements.

The scope of this overview was to find connections between the standard frameworks and the frameworks that are custom-created for real business use.

The Open Innovation model is currently the most popular amongst vendors.


December 2013

28

5 Software Appl icat ions

5.1 Ideat ion

For this analysis, only companies that have software applications in the IM sector were searched. Through our web search (focused on social networks and innovation communities) it was possible to identify what were the main applications innovation managers mentioned and implemented.

The market reputation of each application was a key driver, whilst targeting the main research goals: identifying the top vendors, trends, best practices, and providing a state-of-the-art vision of the global market.

Although dozens of solutions were found, only twenty-three were considered. From these twenty-three, eleven vendors/applications were selected for this comparative analysis.

For the criteria definition, three major trends (according to KPCB’s Internet Trends D11 Conference) were considered:

Mobile: Internet traffic running on mobile devices increased from 10% to 15% this past year. It is important to compare this to 2009 when Internet traffic on mobile devices was less than one percent.

Engagement of key users: The secret behind the success on any IM process is people engagement. Applying game mechanics to IM software applications produces better results since employees like to be involved.

Cloud: A growing number of companies prefer to have access to key information from almost anywhere (enabled by cloud computing and delivered as a software and as a service (Saas) model).

5 .1 .1 Spigit

Spig i t Engage was developed by Spigit in California (USA), an IM platform focused on the generation of ideas and is used to invent new products, services, reduce costs and increase employee and customer engagement. It is available for companies that have more than 5.000 employees. However, Spigit affords one the opportunity to test their free solution IdeaMeter. In this solution we can recognize the base functionalities and thus have an idea of its mechanics.

Spig i t Engage is used by some of world’s top companies like Microsoft, Facebook and SalesForce. They also have top players as partners, for example, LinkedIn, Facebook, Yammer and Jive. Spigit Engage was developed with the objective of boosting people engagement and social collaboration. It comes with many functionalities of which the most relevant is its engaging user interface, idea graduation, game mechanics, analytics, and the language development kit.

The evaluation of an idea is done by all registered platform users in a collaborative way. The system implements a voting system where more votes means better ideas. There is no defined or customised workflow.

This platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas). Spigit Engage is made available to all countries but it is in the US and the UK markets where Spigit holds a strategic position.


December 2013

29

5 .1 .2 Lithium Ideas

Lith ium Ideas was developed by Lithium in California (USA). According to IDC this solution is a leader in the IM software sector. It implements game mechanisms, ideas management, analytics, and open innovation concepts. They focus on getting ideas from customers and use the latter’s own customer network to solicit and vote on the best ideas. Listening to the customer’s customers results in new products that are desired by consumers.

The social concept of voting and the constant feedback seem to be two of the secrets behind the application’s success. This way people feel engaged and the quality of their contribution increases over time. The opportunity to discuss general issues is another feature that promotes great impact in getting worked ideas because during the discussion forum the moderators can elevate the discussion to an idea.

They have a strong partnership program. Powerful players like SalesForce, SAP, Microsoft, TSystems and VMW are currently working with them. The platform is available for mobile devices and is distributed as a service on the cloud (Saas). Lithium has representations in California, Austin (Texas), New York, the UK, France, Switzerland, Singapore and Sydney.

5 .1 .3 Idea Management Software

Idea Management Software was developed by Qmarkets in Mountain View (USA) in 2006. Qmarkets is a software company specialising in collective wisdom solutions - solutions that help organisations involve their employees and customers in real decision making processes, thereby achieving better business results whilst strengthening employee and customer commitment. It provides complete corporate-grade software, focusing on ideas management and market predictions.

Idea Management allows managers to get to the golden nuggets. They do this by combining intelligence filters and evaluation engines, automatic idea clustering and analysis, and an effective innovation process embedded in the software.

Amongst Qmarkets’ customers are the likes of the BBC, the European Commission, Henkel, KPMG, Imperial College of London, Intel, Universal, Novartis, Hyundai and Kraft. Their partners include big companies like Logica, ASP Group, Deloitte, Innovation Consultancy Cridon amongst others.

Idea Management is provided with much functionality, the most relevant being the Community Feedback, Games Mechanics, Expert Review Committee, Analytics and Integrated Project Management. It also permits workflow creation and other configuration tools.

This platform is available for mobile devices and operates as a service on the cloud (Saas). Qmarkets has representations in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Australia and Israel.

5 .1 .4 Innocentive@work

Innocent ive@work was developed by InnoCentive in Waltham (near Boston, USA). This platform serves as the innovation system-of-record for managing all needs, ideas, problems, challenges, problem solver communities, and solutions within companies/organisations of all shapes and sizes. InnoCent ive@work provides a view into innovation portfolio and strategy by incorporating reporting dashboards.

It is a collaborative web-based suite of tools and services that help companies use the diverse knowledge inside and outside their organisation by creating online communities and facilitating collaboration so as to solve important


December 2013

30

business challenges, regardless of where solutions are hiding. It implements open innovation concepts. It also encourages companies to launch internal challenges as well as promote communities.

This platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas). It provides the opportunity to realize sales all over the world. Innocent ive@work has representations in the USA and the UK.

5 .1 .5 PIT - Innovation Factory

PIT was developed by Innovation Factory in the Netherlands. PIT has ample functionality to communicate with the crowd. It permits the selection of groups of people to be addressed. These communications can be fully customised. It implements Ideas Management, Analytics, Flexible Evaluation Workflow, Single Sign-on and Open Innovation concepts.

PIT is used by Heineken, Vodafone, Delta Programme IJsselmeer Region, ProRail, PostNL and Liander. Their partners include BearingPoint, Methodos and RTech.

This multi-lingual (18 languages) platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas). Innovation Factory has representations in Brussels, Italy and Oman through its partners.

5 .1 .6 Innovation Suite - BrightIdea

Innovat ion Suite was developed by BrightIdea in California (USA). The application is designed to maximise collective knowledge, drive idea execution through streamlined processes and deliver measurable business results.

Innovat ion Suite has three modules - Brightideas WebStorm, Switchboard and Pipeline – able to be extended and scaled to support growing business needs. Innovation Suite provides end-to-end IM combining enhanced idea collection functionality in WebStorm with proposal development in Switchboard and agile social project management in Pipeline.

Amongst Innovation Suite’s customers are the likes of 21st Century, British Telecom, Cisco, Motorola, DHL, Adobe, Sony and Panasonic. Their partners include HP, IBM, and Prodigyworks.

This platform is available for mobile devices. The company is represented in the USA (San Francisco and New Work).

5 .1 .7 IHS Goldf ire - Invention Machine

IHS Goldf ire was developed by IHS in Cambridge (USA). It is a multifaceted IM platform comprising four modules which are complementary. It implements knowledge management, idea management, patent management and supports decision making.

IHS has customers all over the world and they work with some of the world’s top players in different industry sectors - 3M, CAT, SHELL and SAMSUNG are but a few examples. The IHS Gold Innovator module aims to be a decision-based engine on ideas management and is focused on the creation of new products.

It implements common functionalities like ideas management, profile management, analytics, and gives users several mechanisms to substantiate on their ideas. It permits the connection to internal and external content, transforming unstructured data – regardless of its location or authoring language – into actionable intelligence


December 2013

31

which can fuel innovation activities. It also connects innovation communities and allows these to share projects, ideas, and expertise through a collaborative framework to speed up problem solving and to uncover optimal solutions.

This platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas). IHS has representations in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Republic of Belarus and Japan.

5 .1 .8 BrainBankinc

BrainBankinc was developed by BrainBankinc, in Dorval (Canada) and is a tool focused on the generation of ideas.

It implements game mechanisms, ideas management, challenges, reporting, voting system, task management, and multilingual mechanisms. The purpose of the platform is to listen to the stakeholders in order to develop products and create value for the market.

This solution has different functionalities. The first functionality permits the configuration of the idea workflow. With this functionality the Innovation manager can define an ideas workflow that makes sense for the company. The second functionality permits customised forms. It provides an API that enables the integration of the system with any external platform. These integrations are already active with Jive, Sharepoint, Lotus Notes and SAP.

Bra inBankinc have some top market players as partners and customers: Johnson&Johnson, Verizon, the Olympic Games Committee, FedEx and IVECO, to name but a few.

This platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas).

5 .1 .9 Imaginatik´s Software

Imaginat ik´s Software was developed by Imaginatik in Boston (USA). This collaborative application has three modules - Innovation Central, Discovery Central and Results Engine. With these three modules a company can improve products, build teamwork, connect with customers and solve critical business problems. It helps uncover customer needs and find hidden factors for market success by turning market data and insights into new major growth opportunities. With the Results Engine Module we can transform promising concept ideas into reality. This platform includes clients like Allianz, Bayer, Chubb Group and Pitney Bowes amongst others.

Imaginat ik is represented in Boston (USA) and in the UK.

5 .1 .10 Hype Innovation

“Ideas to market” defines the main goal of Hype Innovat ion , owned by a German company. It was developed by Hype in Cambridge (USA) and is focused on ideas generation. It has been on the market since 2001 and is a major player in IM software and services.

It implements an organisation portal where users and administrators have access to all functionalities and data such as news, events and tasks. This solution includes game mechanisms, ideas management, challenges, reporting and voting system, some crowdsourcing tools, concepts and project management. It is suitable for both small and large companies.


December 2013

32

It has a rigid workflow. Ideas are generated through discussions or concepts. The administrator can determine if an idea is “Hot” and pass it on to the next phase.

Hype Innovat ion has a wide range of customers and they work with some top players in different sectors - Coca-Cola, Adidas, Continental and Nokia are but a few examples.

The platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas). Hype Innovation is available to all countries. However, it only has representations in Germany and in the USA.

5.1 .11 IdeaScale

IdeaScale is the name of the application and the vendor. IdeaScale is represented in the USA, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Germany and Singapore. This application is a collaborative IM platform focused on ideas generation (it permit users to submit ideas, others then vote on these ideas, and subsequently the best ideas bubble up). The principal characteristics of this application are the analysis, customisation, moderation, security and social aspects. This platform is available for mobile devices and works as a service on the cloud (Saas).

5 .1 .12 Final Remarks

There are well-defined patterns in these solutions (see table 4). Most of them have common core functionalities like ideas management, management profiles, and the promotion of the work in a collaborative way.

However, the choice of an IM solution should be based on the real necessities of the company since there are not two like companies. Each company has its own objectives, culture and methods of working.

After a brief assessment of the needs of a company, it is possible to choose a solution that best supports its strategy. This depends on different factors:

Is the focus indoors and based only on employee feedback or does it prefer the crowd and therefore listens to partners, suppliers and customers through open innovation concepts?

Does it work in the traditional way or does it prefer to implement game mechanics so as to involve employees?

Is available on the cloud or does it only exists on the company’s firewall?

Is API (Application Programming Interface), an interface implemented in a software program that enables it to communicate with other software, a critical issue or not?

Regardless of the final choice between vendor applications, it is important that the selected solution is in line with the needs of each company so that when deployed it generates added value and market growth.

Despite that, it is remains important to track trends in order to be ready for the future of this fast growing market.

Game Mechanics feature is the preference of a growing number of companies.

API, SaaS/ Cloud-based and Mobile are the major trends.


December 2013

33

Spig

it En

gage

Lith

ium

Idea

s

Qm

arke

ts

Inno

cent

ive@

work

Inve

ntio

n M

achi

ne

PIT

Brig

htId

ea

Brai

nBan

kinc

Imag

inat

ik

Hype

Inno

vatio

n

Idea

Scal

e

Ideas Management

Knowledge Ecosystem 1

Challenges

External Evaluation2

Profile Management

Analytics

Workflows

Workflows Management3

Evaluation Criteria

Game Mechanisms4

Collaborative

SaaS

Mobile

Table 4 . Ideation Comparative table

1 Knowledge Ecosystem: Allows inserting and registering of an information (from the technological or the marketplace)

2 External Evaluations: Allows people outside the organization to do an evaluation

3 Workflows Management: An organization can set and customize the desired workflow

4 Game Mechanics: Interaction strategies between people and businesses based on providing incentives that encourage engagement, like

Gamification and awards

5.2 Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation This analysis focused on software for crowdsourcing and open innovation. The information was obtained via the Internet, mainly on web platforms and software websites.


December 2013

34

5 .2.1 Crowdicity Crowdic i ty is an open innovation platform designed to obtain external ideas in response to internal challenges, share ideas and receive feedback on them, as well as create a network amongst the company’s employees.

Management’s challenge lies in allowing posts from all in order to gather as many ideas as possible before making the best decision. These challenges can have a deadline and can be aimed at different groups of people. After the submission of ideas, these can be discussed by the entire community or by a specific group and be voted on, thereby permitting the best ideas to be noticed. The voting scheme can be configured to meet the needs of the company/organisation.

Apart from the ideas, Crowdic i ty has a strong network component. It connects people on a network and enhances the collaboration of idea generation through a social media design and a gamification system, showing a leader board on each system powered by it.

The Crowdic i ty platform is used by BBC, WWF, Lego, Unicef, TEDx, Saint-Gobain, Deloitte and P&G, amongst other organisations.

Crowdic i ty is based in the UK.

5 .2.2 Hypios Hypios is a crowdsourcing and competency discovery technology platform designed for posting R&D problems to the network of experts. It rewards the expert who comes up with the best solution before a deadline.

The Hypios network covers 950.000 experts from around the world. In addition to the platform, Hypios places a group of partners at the disposal of the customer. These partners help in formulating the problem clearly, setting the deadline and reward. Experts are then selected from the global database based on the relevant key words of the problem.

Hypios is based in France.

5 .2.3 IdeaConnection

IdeaConnect ion is a crowdsourcing platform with a worldwide network of experts in several areas who are focused on solving technical problems and finding new technologies.

Problem solving by IdeaConnect ion is done by small teams of experts, providing complete confidentiality for both the challenges and the solutions. Alongside challenges, companies can do technology scouting by making use of a global partner’s network to find new technologies that meet its requirements. Completing the platform, IdeaConnect ion offers a challenge writing service aimed at helping customers present their problems clearly to the network of experts.

We found no listed customer references of IdeaConnect ion . However, on its website, it mentions that seven companies of the Fortune 200 are customers.

IdeaConnect ion is based in Canada.


December 2013

35

5 .2.4 Ideaken

Ideaken is a simple collaborative crowdsourcing platform which allows companies to collaborate with employees, customers and other actors in searching for answers through challenge submission.

The process of innovation seeking comprises three steps: defining the challenge and solver base, selecting who can help solve the problem; monitoring the progress of the solutions and the activities of the solvers; and at the end, reward those solutions that best meet the initial requirements. The paid corporate version of the platform permits the exclusive use within the company/organisation of challenge submission and solution posting.

Ideaken Pte. Ltd. is based in India. It also has an office in Singapore.

5 .2.5 InnoCentive InnoCent ive is an open innovation and crowdsourcing platform aimed at helping companies solve internal problems with the help of employees, customers, partners or the crowd.

Problems can be raised in the form of a challenge opened to a global solver community; or treated within the company’s environment, including partners and customers; or through challenge programs or innovation competitions.

InnoCent ive partners include Accenture, NASA, Nature.com, Scientific American and The Economist. InnoCent ive is based in the USA and the UK.

5 .2.6 Innoget Innoget is a free open innovation market place for technology offers and requests. It consists of a large number of professionals, requests and offers from companies that seek collaboration with external professionals. Alternatively, these professionals can post offers, search for companies willing to invest in joint developments, technology acquisition, licensing or any other type of collaboration.

Science and technology parks, academic associations and entities engaged in innovation and technology are referred to as Innoget partners. Innoget was created in 2007 by a group of independent professionals in Spain.

5 .2.7 NineSights NineSights , a community of NineSigma, allows a company (solution seeker) to have at its disposal a large community of innovators (solution providers) ready to help find answers on demand. On the other hand, these innovators can seek funding or even partnerships with the companies present on the platform. NineSights ’ solution providers can have their own gallery, an online market place for questioning the innovators on the specific subjects of their innovation program.

It is possible to find Samsung, GE, Under Armour, Goodyear, Kraft and Philips at NineSights ’ featured galleries. NineSigma is based in the USA. It also has offices in Belgium, Japan, Australia and South Korea.


December 2013

36

5 .2.8 Sophia Wellspring Worldwide’s Sophia is an open innovation software with modules focused on projects, invention and technology platforms, opportunity tracking, intellectual property agreements, amongst others. Combining these modules, Sophia provides the necessary infrastructure for internal innovation management. Sophia can be integrated with other applications such as accounting, human resources and internal platforms, providing all the information in one place.

Without making reference to customer names, Sophia is used in companies, universities, hospitals, philanthropic organisations and government agencies. Wellspring Worldwide is located in the USA.

5.2.9 Final Remarks

Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation platforms are focused on using a wide network of experts to solve problems, develop new technologies or solutions (see table 5). In this way, the submission of challenges and the ability to discuss the ideas given to them are the main topics of this software. The SaaS model is mandatory for these applications so as to reach a larger scope of solvers for the proposed challenges.

These platforms permit companies to open challenges in an anonymous manner. Company names are not disclosed to the solvers nor are they permitted to sponsor challenge programs, with well-defined deadlines and rewards.

To promote the submission of solutions, the gamification concept is use in Crowdcity. Ideaken and InnoCentive can be brought into a company and operate as an internal platform, thereby restraining the number of potential solvers but still safeguarding all confidential matters of the company.


December 2013

37

Crow

dicit

y

Hypi

os

Idea

Conn

ectio

n

Idea

ken

Inno

Cent

ive

Inno

get

Nine

Sigh

ts

Soph

ia

SaaS

Challenge Submission

Ideas Discussion

Ideas Voting

Gamification

Internal Platform

Innovation Management

Table 5 . Crowdsourcing & Open Innovation Comparative table

Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation platforms provide a wide network of experts to solve the problems of companies.

5.3 Strategy & Assessment

Of the twelve applications and tools, the five most representative were selected and are described in more detail below. However, in order to provide a complete overview, a list of all the tools and their features is presented in table 6.

5 .3.1 Innovator ’s DNA

iDNA is based on discovery skills: Associating, Questioning, Observing, Networking and Experimenting. Its approach to the assessment tool is by checking three sets of characteristics considered crucial in every innovator’s profile:


December 2013

38

a) The Courage to Innovate

b) Discovery Skills (Innovation)

c) Delivery Skills (Execution)

Assessment Flow:

First phase is to determine the leader’s characteristics on five different outcomes:

a) Focused Innovator

b) Innovator + Execution

c) Developer

d) Executor + Innovator

e) Focused Executor

The second phase is to determine the participant’s courage to innovate based on a set of questions/problems (not available). The result represents a number on a scale from 1 to 7. The Successful Innovator representing a score of 6 or higher.

Three aspects are taken into consideration:

a) Capability to challenge the status quo

b) Risk taking

c) Creative confidence

Figure 13. Innovator’s DNA Phase 2


December 2013

39

The third phase is to assess the respondent’s discovery skills mentioned above: Associating, Questioning, Observing, Networking, and Experimenting.

Figure 14 . Innovator’s DNA Phase 3

The fourth phase is to determine the respondent’s delivery skills by assessing four characteristics: Analyzing, Planning, Detail-oriented, and Self-disciplined.

Figure 15 . Innovator’s DNA Phase 4


December 2013

40

The summary below presents the combined results of all the phases:

Figure 16 . Innovator’s DNA Summary

5 .3.2 Impr3ove

Impr3ove Assessment provides an indication of the company’s competitiveness and sustainable growth. It reflects the involvement of Innovation Management’s capabilities in the company’s competitiveness.

Based on the Diamond model, Impr3ove’s approach is to assess the company’s Innovation Strategy, Innovation Organisation and Culture, Innovation, Processes, Enabling factors for Innovation and the Results achieved through Innovation.

Figure 17 . Impr3ove Diamond Model

Innovat ion Strategy: Vision and Strategic focus on Innovation

Organisat ion & Culture : Roles and responsibilities, organisational structure, culture and climate

Innovat ion Lifecycle Processes: Ideas Management, Product or Service Development, Launch and Continuous Development

Enabl ing factors : Project Management, HR, Incentives, IT & Knowledge Management


December 2013

41

Impr3ove offers three types of data for the above mentioned dimensions:

a) The company’s/organization’s results

b) Results of Growth Champions (Top Companies/Organisations)

c) Average results

Figure 18 . Impr3ove Benchmarking Results

This feature is very useful since it is a benchmark report for the company.

This tool offers assessment services only. Consultancy services by Impr3ove fall outside the scope of this tool.

5 .3.3 Innovation Scoring by Cotec

This self-assessment tool developed by Cotec, the leading Innovation Organisation in Portugal, assesses the company’s innovation capabilities and performance. This tool intends to offer companies an in-depth understanding of the different dimensions that sustain such processes and to highlight areas that need further improvement.

Innovation Scoring covers the following four dimensions of Innovation: Conditions, Results, Processes and Resources as shown in Figure 19 (note: The questionnaire used by Innovation Scoring can be found at www.innovationscoring.com/images/conteudo/Dados_IS_en.PDF).


December 2013

42

Figure 19 . Dimensions of Innovation

5 .3.4 Strategos Strategos is a global innovation and strategy consulting company. One of Strategos ’ services is an innovation diagnostic that assesses a company’s innovation capabilities.

Figure 20 . Strategos Assessment Model

The outcome of this assessment is the following:

An external assessment of the company’s innovation capabilities.

Potential roadblocks and accelerators that will impact on the company’s innovation performance.

Agreed “future state” of innovation in the company.

A set of drivers and road map of the innovation change.


December 2013

43

An understanding of the innovation ambitions of the company.

Organisational support for changing the plans, going forward.

5 .3.5 ADL – Health Check Arthur D. Little’s Innovation Assessment solution is called “Health Check”. It was developed after identifying five characteristics that are associated with highly innovative companies (see Figure 21).

Figure 21 . Arthur D. Little Assessment Model

The assessment is done by checking the degree to which these characteristics are reflected in a particular company/organisation. This emphasises the weak links that require extra attention. A comparison between the company’s results and industry peers is done, outlining the differences and gaps in innovation that should be filled within the company. About twenty minutes are sufficient to assess the company’s Innovation Management Capabilities.

5 .3.6 Final Remarks The Table 6 shows the state of each Assessment Tool and their specific feature(s).

Onl ine : Methods requiring an Internet connection (On-line platforms, Websites, On-line PDF questionnaires, etc.)

L i te free : The Lite version of the tool is free but the standard version is paid.

Benchmark : This feature permits comparisons of company results with the industry average and the top performers.

Offline: Methods that are not related to the use of an on-line platform (PDFs, Questionnaires, Surveys, Hands-on approaches, etc.).


December 2013

44

Attr ibute

Vendor Onl ine Off l ine Benchmark Feature

iDNA 3 Characteristics

Impr3ove 5 Criteria, 8 Languages, No restriction on

size of the organization

Strategos 3 Insights areas

Innovation Scoring – Cotec N/A

ADL PDF 20 minutes Assessment

Innov Points N/A

311 Institute Survey 6 Dynamic Foundations

Nordic Innovation Developed for Nordic organizations

BIA N/A N/A Innovation leadership assessment

Power Patterns Thomas Edison’s 5 Innovation

Competences

Consult 101 N/A

Mind Matters Hands-on approach

Stage-Gate Holistic approach / Innovation Maturity

Framework

Table 6 . Strategy & Assessment Comparative table

5.4 Intel lectual Property

This web research was extended to market reports, forums and social networks. One of the major inputs was the MarketView™ Report: IPM Systems for Corporations provided by Hyperion Research, dated October 2011, where several solutions are quoted.

Each software application was analysed according to its functionalities, business model, customers and world coverage.

5 .4.1 Anaqua

Anaqua is an Intellectual Asset Management Software with different solutions for companies with an internal IP team that manages its own portfolio, and for law firms to help them manage their customers’ intellectual assets.

Focusing on corporate solutions, Anaqua provides three different options: Enterprise, Express and Element according to the company portfolio and IP team size.


December 2013

45

Anaqua Enterprise is directed at companies/organisations with large IP portfolios and global IP teams. It includes the management of inventions, patents and trademarks in support of the Portfolio Management. It also offers IP Project Management and License Management. Anaqua Express addresses the full life-cycle solution for managing inventions, patents and trademarks, and other intellectual assets through inventions, patent and trademark management modules. Anaqua Element is a cloud-based solution for IP professionals managing small portfolios through inventions, patent and trademark management modules.

Anaqua’s customer list consists of both small and large companies - BASF, Xerox, SAP, Microsoft, Jaguar Land Rover, Ford and British American Tobacco.

Anaqua is based in the USA; it also has offices in the UK and France.

5 .4.2 CPA Global

CPA Global presents itself as “the world leader in web-based IP management software” with more than 20.000 IP professionals and 850 companies and law firms using their software to manage patents, designs, trademarks, contracts and domain names.

The CPA Global portfolio includes three IP management systems (Memotech, FoundationIP and IPendo) and three software solutions (First to File, First to File for Trademarks and Discover), “designed to help organisations collaboratively manage their valuable intangible assets during all stages of the IP lifecycle”.

Memotech is IP management software with patent, trademark, design, licensing and agreement, and domain name portfolio management. It also keeps track of invention submissions, inventor awards and costs associated with the lifecycle of an IP portfolio.

FoundationIP is a secure and efficient IP assets managing tool enabling access to critical IP information – from documents and deadlines to budgets and contacts (mostly for Intellectual Property Lawyers).

IPendo permits the key stakeholders to connect with a company/organisation by allowing them to work together on the available IP information within the system.

First to File is a software for managing the patent process, including configurable workflows, automation and knowledge management. First to File for Trademarks permits worldwide database searches, including automated associations between trademarks and the user’s Internet domains, products, and patents.

Discover is directed at researchers and R&D inventors. It is used in patent searches, provision of results, navigation, and as analytical tool to identify the most active companies, technology trends, inventors and countries.

In CPA Global ’s case studies we find references from Microsoft, Nestlé and Canon. The head office of CPA Global is in the UK. It also has offices in Australia, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, the UK and the USA.

5.4.3 Decipher

Decipher Solution provides a central repository for a company’s IP assets and related data. The Decipher Innovation module includes a register of patentable ideas and their inventors. It also records invention workflow (reviewing, ratting and approval) so as to simplify the invention disclosure process later.


December 2013

46

With regard to the patent management process, Decipher Portfolio Management includes a patent management module which allows the company to manage internally developed and externally acquired patents within the same portfolio, profile competitors, partners or other third-party patents against the company’s patent portfolio. In this module, it is also possible to manage trademarks (linking them to domain names and products) and trade secrets.

The Decipher Commercialisation module complements the aforementioned modules by managing contracts and licensing amongst other documents, for a better return of the IP investment.

LI-COR and Cascade Microtech use Decipher to manage their IP portfolios. Decipher, based the USA, is a software company within the Innovation Asset Group.

5 .4.4 DIAMS iQ

DIAMS iQ is Dennemeyer’s solution for persons managing an IP portfolio. It includes modules on management of trademarks, patents, designs and additional matters like agreements, licenses and oppositions.

The Trademark Module permits the creation and maintenance of trademark portfolios by using a creation wizard that supports filings of all national jurisdictions. Invention disclosure, patent generation wizard, and prior-art searches are provided by the Patent Module. Similar to the Trademark Module, the Design Module supports the management of design families. The Matter Module includes agreements, licenses, oppositions, records, infringements, searches, litigation or cancellation/invalidity actions, linking them automatically to other IP assets.

Besides the main modules, DIAMS iQ also provides intuitive search tools, a document management system, cost-tracking feature and numerous built-in reporting options.

The DIAMS Classic is IP management software that accompanies the entire lifecycle of an IP asset from filing through to controlling.

Dennemeyer’s client list includes Bayer AG, L’Oreal, Porsche AG and Nascar. Dennemeyer is based in Luxembourg; it also has offices in France, Germany, Romania, the UK, the USA, Japan, Switzerland and Canada.

5 .4.5 IPfol io

IPfol io is a cloud-based platform for management of inventions, patents, brands, trademarks, related contracts and agreements. IPfol io presents itself as a convenient way to internally manage the IP portfolio, giving a complete insight into the scope and status of the company’s portfolio. Information is easily tagged and searchable. It permits the creation of personalised dashboards and automated reports for a better understanding of all IP assets, products and projects.

IPfol io contains an Enterprise Social Network, similar to Facebook and LinkedIn, allowing users to share information and collaborate, comment, discuss and follow what is happening with specific inventions or with the entire IP organisation. It can be complemented with the Inventors’ Portal, a web application designed for R&D employees, to potentiate collaboration between the company and the inventors.

IPfol io ’s client list includes large companies like Oriflame Cosmetics, mid-sized companies, start-ups, universities and research organisations, IP consultancies and IP law firms.

IPfol io was created in Europe (at Unycom’s headquarters) but is now based in Berkley, California. It has partners in India, Brazil, Italy and the USA (Miami).


December 2013

47

5 .4.6 IP Portfol io 5

IP Portfol io 5 is a Knowligent IP management software that manages all types of intellectual asset, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets amongst others, organising them into a complete IP portfolio. It also includes inventions management, contacts management, accounting and marketing.

IP Portfol io 5 is a Knowligent software which offers an integrated reporting system – creation of reports and/or charts.

Knowligent is based the USA.

5 .4.7 Lecorpio

Lecorpio is an IP asset management solution that includes invention disclosure, patent, trademark and IP portfolio management.

Invention Disclosure Management permits inventors to collaborate during the idea development stage by submitting new invention disclosures on the system.

Patent Management provides a centralised repository for all patent and trademark office correspondence, workflows for drafting, filing, prosecution and maintenance, docketing management including national statutory rules and deadlines, divisional and continuation filings, international filing approvals, annuity reviews and comprehensive budgeting and invoicing management.

Trademark Management provides complete lifecycle automation for trademarks, domains and copyrights.

IP Portfolio Management provides real-time insight into all IP assets and drill down to all detailed data.

Lecorpio ’s client list includes Lexmark and NEC. Lecorpio has its head office in the USA, as well as part of its client services. It also has infrastructures in India handling customer services and engineering.

5 .4.8 Patrawin Enterprise

Patrawin Enterpr ise is IP management software that handles all IP matters – patents, trademarks, designs, domain names, new inventions and litigations – using electronic document processing to store several types of documents, including a workflow for documents delegation. Deadlines can be automatically generated and monitored. A report module is available for accessing all information, giving decision makers a complete overview of the portfolio.

Patrawin Enterpr ise is software from Patrafee, a company with offices in Sweden and the UK. It has representatives in Australia, New Zealand and Israel.

5 .4.9 Thomson IP Manager

Thomson IP Manager is IP management software that provides end-to-end management of individual intellectual assets from R&D to filings, prosecution, grants, conflicts, licensing amongst others.


December 2013

48

The built-in Process Architect permits the designing, implementation and management of all IP processes with workflow-driven automated forms and tools to gather all relevant information on patents, trademarks, designs, disclosures, agreements and other critical business records, creating a complete IP portfolio.

Thomson IP Manager is a software solution by Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters has its head office in the USA. Additionally, it has main offices in the USA, Canada and the UK.

5.4.10 Unycom IPMS

Unycom IPMS is IP management software that supports all types of IP, including patents, trademarks, utility models, designs, copyright and domain names.

Its functionalities make it possible to keep track of all procedures and time limits related to the IP creation and maintenance process, structure, classify all types of IP rights, manage communication and data exchange with all stakeholders outside the IP department and have access to several monitoring and reporting tools.

Siemens AG is a referenced customer of Unycom IPMS. Unycom is based in Austria and has offices in Germany and the USA.

5 .4.11 Final Remarks

The main features of an Intellectual Property Management Software (IPMS) are Patent Management and Trademark Management (see table 7). Depending on the profile of the customer and its IP management system, other modules can complement these two. These other modules include Invention, Design, License and Portfolio Management, and a collaborative platform.

When choosing an IPMS one must take into consideration all the components of the IP management system – the number of IP assets, the employees involved, the internal processes and the objectives that the software must accomplish.


December 2013

49

Anaq

ua

Mem

otec

h

Foun

datio

nIP

IPen

do

Firs

t to

File

Firs

t to

File

for T

rade

mar

k

Disc

over

Decip

her

DIAM

S iQ

IPfo

lio

IPPo

rtfol

io5

Leco

rpio

Patra

win

Thom

son

IP M

anag

er

Unyc

om IP

MS

SaaS 1

Invention Management

Patent Management

Trademark Management

Design Management

Portfolio Management

License Management

Invention Submission

Collaboration Platform 2

Online Search 3

Table 7 . Intellectual Property (IP) Comparative table

1 Software distribution model in which the software and data are hosted on the cloud by the service provider 2 Allows the key stakeholders to communicate and access information within the platform 3 Allows the search of Internet databases and/or websites

5.5 Technology & Market Intel l igence

This analysis focused on software for managing technology & market intelligence processes. The information was obtained via the Internet, mainly on web platforms and software websites.


December 2013

50

5 .5.1 AMI Enterprise Intel l igence

AMI Enterpr ise Intel l igence, from AMI Software, is a competitive intelligence software solution to design, search, collect, organize, analyse and distribute information within a company/organisation. AMI Enterpr ise Intel l igence uses a crawler to obtain relevant information from RSS feeds, external search engines, forums, newsgroups, blogs, social networks and others. It permits an analysis and presentation of the information gathered from the categorised sources, classified by relevance and of major importance for the company/organisation.

Amongst AMI Enterpr ise Intel l igence’s customers are national and local authorities like Mairie de Paris, Républic et Canton de Neuchátel, Marine Nationale, Autoroutes du Maroc, Canton du Valais, Direction Generale de L’Aviation Civile and Ministere de L’Interiour et de L’Amenagement du Territoire; energy companies like EDF (Électricité de France), Socodei (Goupe EDF) and GDF Suez; industrial sector like Airfrance, Essilor and Rolls-Royce; telecommunications like TDF and Maroc Telecon; and financial institutions like BNP Paribas and Agence France Trésor. Amongst its partners are Yahoo and Xerox.

AMI Software is based in France, the UK and the United Arab Emirates.

5 .5.2 Digimind Intel l igence & Digimind Social

Dig imind Intel l igence is a competitive corporate intelligence software from Digimind. This software is powered by a proprietary analytical engine which provides data insights and analysis that an company needs so as to follow the market, the consumers, the reviews and all other references made about their products or services.

With Dig imind Intel l igence , information is automatically gathered from the web, social media or defined sources, focusing on the key words of the important topics. After information gathering, the relevant information can be disseminated to all workers by way of a newsletter. With Dig imind Intel l igence it is possible to create reports with the relevant data, product and competitor benchmarking. The text mining functionality permits the exploration of huge volumes of gathered data.

Dig imind Social , is another software from Digimind, developed for marketers and social media campaign monitoring. Powered by an artificial intelligence engine it calculates an influence score for every tweet, article or blog post based on criteria such as mentions, visitors, views or followers. It also provides comparisons between the company’s campaigns and those of its competitors - by reach, influence or other comparable features. Dig imind Social also helps find the online reputation of a company and/or its products.

Digimind software is used by Nestlé, Mentos, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens, Schneider Electric, Orange, Bayer and Deloitte. Digimind is based in the USA. It also has offices in England, France, Singapore and Morocco.

5 .5.3 IQ Intel l igence Suite

IQ Intel l igence Suite , from Visual IQ, consists of five software products for marketing intelligence – IQ Envoy, Audience IQ, IQ Sage, IQ Deploy and IQ Insight.

IQ Envoy permits the success metrics calculation of communication channels, campaigns or marketing tactics, using an internal modelling process. Audience IQ compares the data gathered by IQ Envoy to the customers’ information, so as to understand the marketing strategies that produce the best performances on each customer segment. IQ Sage permits the use of multiple scenarios to predict the impact of change on marketing strategies. IQ Deploy is a media buying enablement product which automatically implements optimised media buys. IQ Insight is


December 2013

51

the core product of the IQ Intel l igence Suite , and is used for reporting on all information obtained in each step of the process.

In the IQ Intel l igence Suite it is possible to find case studies and references to Honda and Toyota (automotive), America Express (financial), The Home Depot (retail), AT&T and Orange (telecommunications) and Kaspersky and Symantec (software).

Visual IQ is based in the USA. It has an office in the UK.

5 .5.4 Knowledge.Works Enterprise

Knowledge.Works Enterpr ise is a competitive intelligence software from Cipher, designed for searching, indexing, organising and analysing primary and secondary information sources, including report creation. The gathered information can be used to define strategies for acquisition screening, competitors’ profiles and comparisons, market audits and web monitoring.

We found no listed customer references of Knowledge.Works Enterpr ise . However, on its website, it mentions usage by more than 85 global companies/organisations.

Cipher is based in the USA, with locations in Brazil and Switzerland.

5 .5.5 Final Remarks

From the Market Intelligence Software analysis (see table 8), the main features were identified - the ability to analyse information, whether this information was gathered manually or by the means of Internet crawlers and social networks analysers. To work this information, some softwares provide information classification tools and benchmarking reports for competitor analysis.

Market Intelligence Software can provide the point of view and the voice of the customers.


December 2013

52

AMI E

nter

prise

Inte

lligen

ce

Digi

min

d In

tellig

ence

Digi

min

d So

cial

IQ In

tellig

ent S

uite

Know

ledg

e.Wor

ks E

nter

prise

SaaS

Internet Crawler

Information Analysis

Information Classification

Benchmarking

Web / Social Media Monitoring

Marketing Analysis

Table 8 . Technology & Market Intelligence Comparative table

5.6 Knowledge & Collaborat ion

This analysis focused on software for managing Collaboration and Knowledge Management (KM) projects. Like for the other analyses, the information was obtained on the Internet, mainly through web platforms and software websites, market reports, forums and social networks.

These software applications typically enable a company to manage knowledge-based processes and also facilitate collaboration between employees (internal stakeholders) and partners/customers, amongst other external stakeholders. Since KM is a broad concept, it was decided to concentrate the analysis on Collaboration Software Applications.

Collaboration software was developed to help team members achieve their team goals. The intention of these software applications is to transform the way media and documents are shared and viewed. Additionally, collaboration software usually includes project management features like Task Management, Time Management, Calendars, Gantt charts, etc. From the applications listed in Table 9, three applications were selected for a more detailed analysis.


December 2013

53

5 .6.1 Confluence

Confluence is a Team Collaboration solution developed by the Atlassian group (www.atlassian.com). Confluence is part of the Track and Collaborate software suite, it complements JIRA; developed for tracking, planning of different tasks or projects and HipChat; developed for chatting and sharing documents and files.

In addition, Atlassian offers two add-ons to Confluence: Team Calendars and SharePoints Connector. Moreover, it has a broad product range with over 1.000 applications and different add-ons for both JIRA and Confluence.

5 .6.2 Basecamp

Basecamp lets the user see an entire project on a single page so that nothing gets lost and the project team knows exactly where everything is. Basecamp lists this as an exclusive feature of their software.

The title page mentions the name of the project and provides a description of it. The first section of the page illustrates the discussions that took place between the team members and other persons who had access to this page. The second section presents the tasks and to-do’s. They are centralised in this section. The third section represents the area where the files are stored and managed, thus providing easy-access to all. The fourth and final section represents the area where the drafts, ideas, and the brainstorming results are saved.

5 .6.3 Centroy

Centroy ’s online collaboration tool lets users manage their files, track projects, schedule meetings and create wikis. It offers access from any device, mobile or not, as well as the possibility to brand the workspace with the company’s logo and/or other branding elements. Some of the features worth mentioning are: calendars, wikis, folders and discussion board. Business wikis allow the customer organisation to collaborate in a simple way by using the WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor similar to a Word document. Offering a centralised wiki page has some advantages, for example, the information is centralised in a single place.

Discussion Board enables users to start a group discussion and receive immediate feedback. Employees, customers and partners can ask questions and receive answers. Discussions are threaded, searchable and organised centrally within groups. The discussion board can also act as a brainstorming area, facilitate ideation and creativity

5.6.4 Final Remarks

More than 20 Collaboration Software Applications were gathered (see table 9). Features like document management, group calendars, e-mail integration and discussion board were considered. Moreover, as was mentioned above, mobile application support is a trend that offers great competitive advantage to those who provide it.

In conclusion, even though software programs facilitate the collaboration within a company, the most crucial factor is having an innovation culture that is aligned with the overall corporate culture of the company. This is what that enables a collaborative mind set.


December 2013

54

Document Management

Group Scheduling

Task Management

Discussion Board

Mobile App

Confluence

Cyn.in

Asana

Ace Project

Team Lab

MavenLink

Central Desktop

Collaber

Binfire

Basecamp

Yammer

Zoho Pulse

Centroy

Sosius

Team Work

Connected Work

Pro Tasker

DeskAway

FengOffice

Hot Project

Bitrix 24

iCoordinator

Batipi Workspaces

Accellion in the Cloud

Podio

Clarizen

Table 9 . Knowledge & Collaboration Comparative table


December 2013

55

6 Best Pract ices and Capabi l i t ies

6.1 Clusters

6.1 .1 Fundamentals

The Business Cluster concept was first introduced and popularised by Michael Porter in “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” (1990). He defined them as “Geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in a particular field” Another interpretation worth mentioning comes from DTI. According to DTI, clusters are “Concentrations of competing, collaborating and interdependent companies and institutions which are connected by a system of market and non-market links” (DTI, 1999)

From both definitions three cluster principles emerge:

Concentrat ion : Clusters are concentrated groups of businesses in which interaction is fundamental;

Connect iv i ty : Companies in clusters are interconnected, linked and interdependent;

Commonal i ty : Companies in clusters operate in the same business sector or in related sectors;

Clusters can bring important benefits to businesses and the economy in general. Clusters facilitate networking amongst companies thereby facilitating the exchange of knowledge between companies within the same cluster. Clustering also brings advantages of economies of scale, specialising production within each company by joint operations like purchasing, marketing, etc. For example, companies within a cluster can jointly purchase raw materials or other resources and by doing so benefit from bulk discounts. Clustering enables the creation of a professional, legal and financial infrastructure. According to Michael Porter (M.Porter, 1998), other advantages Business Clusters bring are:

Easier access to suppliers and greater flexibility;

Access to specialised information through personal relationships;

Joint marketing, purchasing and other activities;

Local rivalry and peer pressure;

Innovation through having information on hand about new markets and new technological developments;

Complementary products like tourist attractions;

Reputation of a certain area;

Pool of experienced labour;

Easy access to institutions and public goods;


December 2013

56

However, clusters are not the only approach that drives economic growth and technological development. An informal networking strategy, developing supply-chain operations and improving workforce skills can also drive innovation, competitiveness and growth.

The ICT Business clusters under analysis in this report are: Cluster 55° “Øresund”, AEI Securidad and Silicon Valley. 6 .1 .2 Øresund – Cluster 55° - Sweden and Denmark.

Located in Scandinavia (Denmark and Sweden), this is the fastest growing IT region in Europe. It is also one of the most innovative.

With more than ten years experience in cluster management, founded in 1999 and based on the former Øresund IT cluster, Cluster 55° has developed a strong national and international network and pool of experience which is made available to all its members. Its specialisation lies in internationalisation, matchmaking and fundraising. Being part of Lund University, the cluster acts as a connecting bridge between the academic environment and the business world. This drives development and economic growth.

Cluster 55° has more than 100 members, companies, organisations and institutions ranging from small entities to big multinational companies and international organisations like IBM, Microsoft and RIM (Blackberry).

Cluster 55° offers potential members networking services that are crucial for each company, start-ups, SMEs, etc. One-year membership costs 2900 SEK (330 EUR)

Members of Cluster 55° obtain:

Free participation in the quarterly pitching-events held in its region;

Access to more than 10 000 international contacts within ICT;

Access to their overseas offices e.g. Hong Kong, Brussels and Brazil;

EU co-financing opportunities through participation in any one of its numerous EU projects;

A network of international researchers within several ICT related areas;

Cross-sector cooperation with other industries e.g. life science, logistics, food and environment;


December 2013

57

6 .1 .3 AEI Seguridad – Leon – Spain

Located in Spain, in the region of Leon, AEI Segur idad (The Innovative Business Association for Network Security and Information Systems) is an ICT Cluster specialising in the creation of ecosystems to assist the New Technologies industry by bringing together companies, associations, R&D centres, public and private entities interested in promoting the sector, in a broad sense i.e. including auxiliary and related industries nationwide.

The National Institute of Communication Technologies (INTECO) supports AEI with the objective of creating an operational structure for Spanish companies interested in developing a business in the technological sector. INTECO contributes to AEI by providing resources like facilities, technological infrastructure and also general services through its own systems. This in no way restricts AEI from having their own facilities and general services in future.

AEI Segur idad has 26 member companies and organisations ranging from IT to consultancy. Some of the most noteworthy are multinationals like HP, Accenture and Thales and academic institutes like the University of Leon and the National Institute of Communication Technologies (INTECO).

According to information provided by AEI Seguridad’s Project Head:

AEI Segur idad has a different approach to clustering. It does not function like a regular ICT cluster (e.g. Silicon Valley) but rather like a Non-Profit Organisation within the public sector. Its main activities are the improvement of research processes at Universities, R&D centres and companies in the sector. Other activities may include the promotion of activities which contribute to the economic development of the community as well as the increased competitiveness of companies within their operating sector.

AEI Segur idad members usually manage their R&D+I processes and projects indoors. However, they often rely on partnerships with other entities for different projects i.e. FI4VDI – SUDOE.

The tools used by companies within the cluster are mainly based on information and communication technologies that provide services to public research entities, companies and other institutions.

Funding and Financial incentives for R&D+I and Public support and promotion of R&D+I initiatives are key.


December 2013

58

6 .1 .4 Sil icon Valley – San Francisco Bay – USA. The Santa Clara Valley ICT Cluster also known as “Si l icon Val ley”, situated in northern California, in the USA, is by far the most famous ICT region in the world. The term Si l icon Val ley was first introduced by Ralph Vaerst, an entrepreneur from central California, in January 11, 1971. However, the term did not become widely accepted until the early 1980s when IBM introduced their first PC. At present, there are approximately 250.000 IT workers in the Si l icon Val ley area and over 350.000 in the bigger, Bay Area, of which Si l icon Val ley is a part. According to Barry Jaruzelski , Matthew Le Merle, Sean Randolph (The Culture of Innovation: What Makes San Francisco Bay Area Companies Different? 2012), the Bay Area holds the record for the density of high-tech workers of any metropolitan area and also holds the record for the highest average high-tech salary at USD 144.000. S i l icon Val ley is the biggest high-tech manufacturing region in the USA. In 2011 it received 41% of all US venture capital investments. The region is home to the world’s biggest Internet, software and hardware companies like Adobe, Apple, Google, Oracle, Intel and many others known worldwide. The Bay Area hosts probably the world’s biggest array of scientific research capacity. Five national laboratories regard the region home: Lawrence Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley, Sandia, NASA Ames and the Stanford Linear Accelerator. The region is also home to five leading American research universities: UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz and Stanford. These universities are joined by an array of independent research laboratories like SRI, PARC and the Buck Center on Aging. Therefore, it is safe to say that S i l icon Val ley is not totally dependent on big companies but rather on the connection and synergies created between Companies – Public Institutions - Research Facilities – Universities (Barry Jaruzelski , Matthew Le Merle, Sean Randolph, 2012).

It goes without saying that innovation plays a critical role in Si l icon Val ley ’s development. Innovation lies at the very heart of its development; the region is considered one of the world leaders in innovative activities.

Figure 22 (Barry Jaruzelski , Matthew Le Merle, Sean Randolph, 2012) compares and contrasts the differences, in Patent / Demographic data, between the Bay Area and other noteworthy US ICT Clusters.

Figure 22 . Patents


December 2013

59

As shown in Figure 22, the Bay Area has an impressive advantage over the other clusters, leading with the total number of patents granted in 2010. Innovation is deeply embedded in all the companies within the Bay Area.

Another indicator which reflects the innovation orientation of companies within the Bay Area is the percentage of innovation-related jobs to total employment.

Figure 23 . Employment in Innovation Sectors

As shown in Figure 23 (Barry Jaruzelski , Matthew Le Merle, Sean Randolph, 2012), 18.4% of total employment is represented by innovation related jobs. Added to this, the IT sector is the most significant, covering nearly 50% of the total.

Compared to clusters analysed earlier, Silicon Valley is not an individual entity to the extent that it does not have a Board of Directors nor does it provide services to members. Silicon Valley needs to be seen like a community rather than an organised cluster. This is why the innovation culture present throughout the Bay Area is so important – it does not only help the development of the region but also acts as a bonding force between the entities, keeping them connected.

In another paper, “Why Culture is Key”, Barry Jaruzelski, John Loehr and Richard Holman, (2011), argue that there is a “West Coast culture of Innovation”. More than 270 companies from the San Francisco area were surveyed in order to identify the strategic, cultural and organisational attributes that have lead to the success of this particular area. The report discovered that companies in Silicon Valley are almost twice as likely to adopt strategies based on


December 2013

60

addressing unarticulated needs, thereby being the first in the market to satisfy these needs. Only 28% of companies outside Silicon Valley adopt this strategy of innovation, compared to 46% in Silicon Valley.

In conclusion, the Bay Area offers the greatest business opportunities for new entrants: strong educational background, R&D infrastructure and most importantly, it offers an overwhelming culture for technological development and innovation.

6.2 Innovation Management Survey

6.2.1 About the Survey

The survey focused on how companies manage their innovation practices.

The objectives were:

1. To understand how companies from different industries manage innovation. 2. To determine the influence level that internal and external resources (consultants and software

applications) have on supporting the innovation process.

The survey was conducted online between 20 October 2013 and 1 November 2013, based on a diversified sample of contacts with no prior selection of industries/companies typology. Many of the respondents have a significant involvement in IM activities and are members of the COTEC Portugal innovation network.

In total, 68 respondents participated in this survey, a large representation of Portuguese companies spread across several sectors (37% Manufacturing, 27% Services, 16% Technology, 6% Wholesale and retail, 6% Electronics, 4% Energy, 4% Other).

Only 9% of respondents were from outside Portugal, namely Spain, The Netherlands, UK and Brazil.

The survey comprised eight questions spread over the following three sections:

Sect ion 1 - Context

1. Does your company have a clear innovation strategy that is understood by your employees, customers and suppliers?

2. Does your company have a formal system (structured processes and tools) for innovation management?

3. If your company has a certified innovation management system, please specify?


December 2013

61

Sect ion 2 – Consult ing and Technology

4. Does your company have an external consultant to support the implementation of the innovation management system?

5. How do you rate the innovation management consultancy companies operating in the market place?

6. Does your company have a software solution to support the implementation of the innovation management system?

7. How do you value the IM software companies operating in the market place?

Sect ion 3 – Value Proposit ion

8. What do you most value in an IM software and consultancy solution?

6.2.2 Results

Sect ion 1 - Context

1. Does your company have a clear innovation strategy that is understood by your employees, customers and suppliers?

Amongst the respondents, there was a general recognition of the importance of Innovation Strategy (see Figure 24).

Most of the respondents (71%) stated that they had a good and very good clear definition of innovation strategy, providing to its employees, customers and suppliers, a clear vision of the company´s positioning in relation to Innovation Management.


December 2013

62

Figure 24 . Innovation Strategy

2. Does your company have a formal system (structured processes and tools) for innovation management?

The collected data shows a strong connection between the definition of the innovation strategy and the structured processes/tools to support IM. Sixty-four per cent (64%) of the respondents had a good/very good formal and structured system in place (see Figure 25).

Figure 25 . Innovation Processes

This result indicates that the successful implementation of IM processes and tools is heavily depended on a clear and consistent innovation strategy (see Figure 26).

6% 6% 18% 56% 15%

CLEAR INNOVATION STRATEGY

Poor Very Good

6% 13% 16% 35% 29%

STRUCTURED PROCESSES AND TOOLS IN PLACE

Poor Very Good


December 2013

63

Figure 26 . Strategy and Innovation Processes

3. If your company has a certified innovation management system, please specify?

Half of the respondents indicated that their company already has a certified innovation management system (47% are NP4457: 2007 certified), which explains why 64% of the respondents had a good/very good formal and structured system in place (see Figure 27).

Figure 27 . NP4457:2007

6%

6%

18%

56%

15% 6% 13%

16%

35% 29%

1 2 3 4 5

Clear Innovation Strategy Formal System (structured processes and tools)

47%

40%

3% 4%

6%

SYSTEM CERTIFICATION IN INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

NP 4457:2007

Don´t have

Implementing a system but don't mention it

Don't know

Don´t answer


December 2013

64

Sect ion 2 – Consult ing and Technology

4. Does your company have an external consultant to support the implementation of the innovation management system?

The majority of companies support their processes with in-house resources. Only 37% of the respondents admitted the support of external consultants; 41% indicated no intervention of external consultants supporting IM; 22% did not answer (see Figure 28).

Figure 28 . External Consultants

5. How do you rate the innovation management consultancy companies operating in the market place?

Despite the above results, nearly half of the respondents gave a positive (good and very good) rating to IM consultants operating in the market place.

Figure 29 . Innovation Management Perceived Value

41%

37%

Use of External Consultants

No Yes

1% 9% 44% 37% 9%

INNOVATION MANAGEMENT CONSULTING PERCEIVED VALUE

Poor Very Good


December 2013

65

6. Does your company have a software solution to support the implementation of the innovation management system?

Nearly half of the respondents recognise that software solutions play an important role in the support of the entire IM process.

Figure 30 . Use of IM Software Solutions

Based on the data provided by the respondents, it is possible to make connections between the respondents who use software solutions and four different characteristics, namely: clear definition of the strategy; formal structured processes and tools; use of external consultants; and certification by a Standard, in this case NP 4457:2007). Respondents with a software solution always scored higher on these characteristics (see Table 10).

Respondents # Having a Software Solut ion

Characteristics: Yes No Don’t know

Clear Innovation Strategy 31 14 3

Formal System (structured processes and tools) 29 12 3

External Consultants 15 8 2

Certification NP 4457:2007 22 10 0

Table 10 . Profile of Respondents with Software Solutions in place

47%

43%

10%

USE OF SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS Yes No Don´t know


December 2013

66

7. How do you value the innovation management software companies operating in the market place?

The value respondents attach to IM software companies currently operating in the market place with digital solutions (see Figure 31) is not so consensual as the case of innovation management consultancy companies. Only 38% of the respondents gave a positive rating to IM software companies.

Figure 31 . Software Companies Perceived Value

Sect ion 3 – Value Proposit ion

8. What do you most value in an IM software and consultancy solution?

Respondents indicated the following as the most valuable features for each IM software and consultancy solution.

Software:

Facilitates a more structured and organised approach.

User friendliness.

Adapts to the reality of the company.

Shares knowledge throughout the company in an efficient manner.

Consulting:

Knowledge transfer.

Experience in the implementation of IM systems.

Ideas that are in line with business reality and requirements.

Ideas for reengineering the workflows and the internal organisation.

6% 12% 44% 35% 3%

SOFTWARE COMPANIES PERCEIVED VALUE

Poor Very Good


December 2013

67

6 .2.3 Final remarks

The study allowed us to understand the manner in which organisations (a qualified sample of companies) are managing their innovation practices.

The fact that half of the respondents already have an innovation system in place explains the high scores obtained in measures such as clear innovation strategy and structured processes.

It is essential to define an innovation strategy amongst all stakeholders. This strategy must be aligned with organisational goals and the medium and long-term vision.

The results of this survey contributed to a better understanding of the influence internal or external resources – consultants and software applications – have on the innovation process.

There are several digital tools available in the market that provides important support for structuring IM processes. These software tools can enable companies to integrate innovation processes in their management processes in a more structured and formal way and thereby ensure better interactions between the different functional areas within the company, as opposed to limiting this interaction to a restricted group of people.

The use of Consulting Services and Software Solutions brings valuable features and support to the IM process.

Likewise, the use of external resources permits the monitoring, refreshing and enhancing of the complete innovation process from the conception phase to the innovation project phase.

The decision to have, or not have, a certified IM system is a good opportunity to implement best practices and rethink business processes that do not promote or facilitate the required innovation culture

To arrive at conclusions other than the ones indicated by the data above, a deeper understanding of the dynamics and practices of IM within companies is required.


December 2013

68

7 Trends and Business Opportunit ies

7.1 Top markets/regions

This geographical approach enables the identification of the most important markets for IM vendors. In assessing the geographic location of the present IM vendors, only its head office and international branches were taken into account. Given the fact that vendors only advance with a physical presence when they have significant business opportunities, this could be illustrative of the attractiveness of international markets and global coverage of IM solutions. Partner locations were not taken into account because there is no comparable investment on the part of the vendor in that specific market/location. Figure 32 shows the geographical origin of the 150 vendors worldwide.

Figure 32 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices only (150 locations)


December 2013

69

Figure 32 shows the geographical origin of IM vendors mapping only their head office locations. More than half of the vendors, from this sample of 150, have their head offices in the USA and Canada. Vendors with head offices in European countries (UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Finland and Luxemburg) account for 42% followed by Brazil with only 2,7%.

However to access the most important markets for IM vendors, it also makes sense to map the markets where these vendors have international branches. Figure 33 shows the global distribution of IM vendors – their head offices and international branches (moving from 150 to 332 locations – 40% of the 150 vendors have one or more international branches).

Figure 33 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices and International Branches (332 locations) – World Distribution

In this new setting, nearly a third of the vendors have their head offices and international branches in the USA and Canada. European countries account for nearly half whilst the rest of the world – South America, Japan, Australia, Singapore, China – account for almost 15%.


December 2013

70

Figure 34 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices and International Branches (332 locations) – Country Distribution

When comparing Figure 32 (only IM vendor Head Offices) with Figure 34 (IM vendor Head Offices and International Branches – Country Distribution) – UK, France and Germany emerge as winners in terms of IM vendor market coverage. This shows that these markets are able to attract branches in the own backyard of the top head office markets. This is particularly true of the UK market – an increase from 8% (only IM vendor Head Offices) to 13% (IM vendor Head Offices and International Branches). UK was the leading market for investing in an international branch, what shows its importance and intensity of business opportunities. IM vendors opened 31 international branches in UK versus 21 in USA.


December 2013

71

Currently, North America (particularly USA) and Europe (particularly UK) are the most attractive markets for IM vendors. However, in future, markets like Brazil, Japan, Australia, Singapore and China can represent a promising business opportunity for IM vendors.

This goes along with the following facts:

In the USA, Canada and in the above-mentioned European markets there is a higher customer awareness of the added value of IM solutions. They are representative of more mature markets in terms of demand for IM products and services.

It is easy to find many debates centred round IM standards and best practices in countries like the USA, Germany, France, Portugal, Spain and Brazil.

Applying filters to each software category and using Google Trends, searching for the name of the IM software applications, it is possible to confirm this market attractiveness:

For the Ideat ion software : Most of the IM vendors are in the USA and the UK. Many of these vendors have branches in other countries like Brazil, Portugal, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland and Australia.

For the IP Management software : Most of the IM vendors are in the USA and in Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK). Many of these vendors have branches in other countries like Canada, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea.

For the Market Intel l igence software : Most of the IM vendors are in France, Switzerland and in the UK, USA, Brazil and Singapore. Head offices are centralized in the USA and Europe.

For the Crowdsourc ing and Open Innovat ion software : Most of the IM vendors have their head offices in the USA, followed by Europe (with offices in countries like Belgium, France, Spain and the UK), Australia, India, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

7.2 Top Industr ies / Customers

Figure 35 shows the Industry Distribution. These values were calculated based on the vendor sample. The industry assessment was arrived at by studying each vendor’s offer of software solutions for verticals/industries and customers (where available). It was possible to find this information, mostly available on their websites or on social networks, for nearly 100 of the 150 vendors.


December 2013

72

Figure 35 . Industry Distribution

As an example, Figure 35 shows that 35 out of 100 IM vendors offer solutions (software or/and services) for the Computer and Electronics industry. This can be used to explain the level of competition within a particular industry: the higher the percentage, the greater the competition within the industry.

In terms of industry customers, it is possible to describe some customers for each type of software application:

For the Ideat ion software : References were found to the following clients – HP, IBM, Adobe, Motorola, Sony, Xerox, Microsoft, Cisco and Hertz.

For the IP Management software : References were found to the following clients – in the software and technology industry (Microsoft, SAP, Xerox, Lexmark, Canon, NEC), engineering (Siemens), cosmetics (L’Oreal, Oriflame), automotive (Jaguar Land Rover, Ford, Porsche, Nascar) and food (Nestlé).

For the Market Intel l igence software : References were found to the following clients – in the software industry (Kaspersky, Symantec), food (Nestlé, Mentos), automotive (Toyota, Honda, Rolls-Royce), pharmaceutical (Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline), engineering (Siemens, Schneider Electric, Airfrance, Essilor), consulting (Deloitte), financial (American Express, BNP Paribas, Agence France Trésor), retail (The Home Depot), energy (EDF, Socodei, DGF Suez), communications (AT&T, Orange, TDF, Maroc Telecom), and national and local authorities (Mairie de Paris, Républic et Canton de Neuchátel, Marine Nationale, Autoroutes du Maroc, Canton du Valais, Direction Generale de L’AviationCivile, Ministere de L’Interiour et de L’Amenagement du Territoire).

For the Crowdsourc ing and Open Innovat ion software : References were found to the following clients – in the technology industry (Samsung, GE, Philips), clothing (Under Armour), food (Kraft), automotive (Goodyear, Saint-Gobain), television (BBC), toys (Lego), consulting (Accenture, Deloitte), non-

35%

29% 25%

23% 21%

19% 15% 15%

11%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%


December 2013

73

profitable organizations (WWF, Unicef, TEDx), magazines (Nature.com, Scientific American, The Economist), and governmental agencies (NASA).

For the Innovat ion Assessment Tools and Software : References were found to the following clients in various industries – Shell, Nokia, Oriflame, Syngenta, Whirlpool, Disney, Microsoft, EDP, Chevron, Sony, Aurora Health Care, Clorox, Ericsson and InterCement.

For the Knowledge Management and Col laborat ion software : References were found to the following clients – ICT (Vodafone, Siemens), aerospace and defence (Nasa, ETIHAD), organizations and non-profits (NBA, AIESEC), energy (Siemens, Shell), social-media (Facebook, AirBNB, Twitter, Foursquare, Pinterest, Linkedin), consumer (Coca-Cola, 7Eleven, Burton), IT (eBay, Adobe, Netflix, Atos, Xerox).

7.3 Top Spending by Industry

In order to assess the potential business opportunities for each industry, it is also considered the level of spending by industry (from the Booz & Company’s study called “The Global Innovation 1000” – the 1,000 public companies around the world that spent the most on R&D during the last fiscal year, as of 30 June 2013, published in Strategy & Business, issue 73 - winter 2013). Figure 36 was adapted from Booz & Company - “The Global Innovation 1000” Q4 2013.

Figure 36 . R&D Spending by Industry

Although Figure 36 shows the total amount of R&D spending for an industry, it does not show the specific investments in IM software and services. It was assumed that IM software and services spending are included in the aggregate R&D spending that a company makes.

27%

22%

16%

10% 8%

6% 4% 3% 2%

0% 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%


December 2013

74

Combining both sets of values, it can be seen that Computing and Electronics is the industry that draws the most interest on both R&D spending by industry and industry distribution (customers of IM software and services). This can be an indication that this industry is an extremely important customer for IM vendors.

There are other industries that show the same pattern, for example, Healthcare and Industrials. By contrast, the telecom industry covers 25% of the entire IM industry distribution (Figure 35) but merely 4% of the entire R&D spending (Figure 36).

Some other insights on the evolution of R&D spending by region and industry follow. Data was extracted from Booz & Company “Global Innovation 1000 Study” (2009 – 2013). The values were calculated using data from 2009 as a starting point, and then a growth percentage for each year for subsequent years was applied.

Figure 37 shows that for all the industries, the trend has been positive in the last four years. It also confirms the fact that the Computing and Electronics industry together with the Healthcare industry is where the biggest pie of R&D investment was allocated. However, it should be highlighted that the investments by the Telecom industry recorded a growth rate of nearly 22% for the 2012 – 2013 period, up from only 2% in the 2010 – 2012 period; this evolution is not clearly visible in Figure 37.

Figure 37 . Trends in Industry R&D Spending 2009 - 2013 (millions of USD) - by industries

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

09 - '10 10 - '11 11 - '12 12 - '13

Computing Healthcare Automotive Industries Telecom


December 2013

75

Figure 38 shows an overview of R&D spending for the last four years, within each world region.

Figure 38 . Trends in Industry R&D Spending 2009 - 2013 (millions of USD) – by regions

Figure 38 shows North America and Europe had the biggest share of R&D spending. However, India and China achieved greater growth rates reaching 38% in the 2010 – 2011 period and nearly 35% in the last period mentioned. Compared to the other regions, India and China had the biggest R&D investment growth rates.

For the preceding analysis, it was assumed that IM software and services spending were included in the aggregated R&D spending that a company makes for each industry. Based on recent data from the Booz & Company’s study “The Global Innovation 1000: Navigating the Digital Future” (published in Strategy & Business, issue 73 - Winter 2013), it is also possible to estimate the level of R&D spending on Digital Enablers.

Of the USD 638 bn that The Global Innovation 1000 companies spent on R&D, about USD 52 bn (8%) was allocated to procuring, deploying, and supporting digital enablers (Booz & Company’s study “Navigating the Digital Future”, 2013)

This is feasible since there is an overlap between most of the IM Software tools and Digital Enablers, like discussion platforms, customer profiling, crowdsourcing, idea capture tools, patent scanning, project management and collaborative environments.

In order to compare R&D spending, by industry, on Digital Enablers with the overall R&D spending, the same five industries were used (Computing and Electronics, Healthcare, Motor, Industries and Telecom).

09 - '10 10 - '11 11 - '12 12 - '13 North America 193807 214156 234929 255132

Europe 161862 171249 180496 188618

Japan 113670 115719 118496 114231

Rest of the World 26708 30420 34131 40103

India & China 7528 10426 13262 18010

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000


December 2013

76

Figure 39 . Estimated R&D Spending on Digital Enablers by Industry

Note: The numbers within each bubble connect to the amount spent on R&D.

Figure 39 shows Healthcare out in first place with USD 13.8 bn spent on Digital Enablers, which corresponds to 10% of their overall R&D budget. Computing and Electronics is in second place with 5.7% and USD 9.7 bn. The other 3 industries are: 6.3% for Motor, 7.1% for Industrials and 1% for Telecom, with the amounts (in bns of USD) spent by each industry as shown in the bubbles at Figure 39.

Software and Internet, although not part of the five chosen industries, play an important role in Digital Enabler spending. Software and Internet, is the industry (among all the others that were investigated) that invests the largest percentage of their total R&D budget on Digital Enablers.

Software and Internet companies invested the largest percentage of their total R&D budget on Digital Enablers - USD 7.7 bn spent on Digital Enablers which corresponds to 15% of their total R&D Budget).

7.4 Growth outlook for products and services

When considering business opportunities it is always a good approach to have future-proof activities, ready and in place, in response to anticipated future trends.


December 2013

77

Studying potential future trends – the market and developments within the industry – is fundamental; however, it cannot “make” the future. By having some idea about the future market, one can develop strategies and plan activities in order to anticipate the movement of the market.

Some of the concepts will gain importance in the near future are:

a) Open Collaboration

Country borders and geographical distances are no longer as relevant as they were before the advent of the Internet. Mass communication has facilitated the emergence of the phenomenon of Crowdsourcing and Crowdfunding (obtaining money from the crowd). An example of Crowdfunding is Kickstarter – different individual business projects are presented and the crowd of people visiting the site can choose to fund one or more projects.

Crowdsourcing represents the process of getting ideas and work done by a crowd of people, usually via the Internet. A good example is Wikipedia – instead of hiring managers and editors to control the information, Wikipedia has let the crowd create their own content. It has become one of the most important sources of information on the web today. Crowdsourcing can be viewed as a future trend in Open Innovation, mainly in the Ideation process, due to its impressive ability to generate high quality ideas.

b) Reverse Innovation

Reverse Innovation refers to innovation that is envisaged, created for - and first used by - developing countries before being spreading to the developed world. The process starts by focusing on the low-cost needs of customers in India and/or China, followed by the development of products for these specific markets, and the subsequent sale to markets like the USA and Europe as low-cost products, thereby creating new markets for these products.

c) Gamification or Game Mechanics

Gamification or Game Mechanics is refers to the process of introducing gaming mechanics and/or ideas in order to improve the user experience and the Ideation process. An example is rewards for players (application users/ employees) who accomplish certain tasks. Reward types include points, badges, medals, levels, etc. This strategy has proven to be most useful because it engages the participants whilst creating incentive for performing. Virtual rewards can be converted into physical real-life rewards and prizes. Additional social features can be introduced in order to increase engagement.

d) Customer insight

The use of customer insight tools (like profiling, graphic simulation, digital focus groups or sentimental analysis, storytelling/narratives and coolhunting) are very much in line with the new requirements of buyers involved in the sourcing of IM products and services.

The coolhunting concept has a strong connection to marketing. The process of coolhunting involves making observations and predictions about new and existing cultural, fashion, technological trends but also the changes in these trends. Some of the methods employed for this are the focus groups and covert methods (chat rooms, forums, etc).

Finding a way to connect coolhunting and other customer insight tools with IM products and services may come to be useful in the near future and as a result increase the awareness and adoption of innovation practices.


December 2013

78

8 Internat ional Posit ioning Strategies

8.1 Degree of Turbulence

When expanding into an international market, one of the most important matters is dealing with new customers. Starting out with little or no notoriety in an external market can have important implications for the future of the company. Therefore, knowing the target customers and which features or characteristics they consider most important in the company’s product are two of the most important aspects that need to be addressed.

The following method (inspired in the work of Heather C. Banham, 2010) will help Portuguese ICT companies define potential customers and the features these may consider significant, provide an overview on potential competitors, and ways to promote their products and services:

Define the target c l ients : It is critical to understand which are the most appealing industries and the type of client organisations (culture, internal processes, dimension, management style and investment capabilities). Approaching markets based on this definition will increase the chances of success.

Define the product features : Sometimes vendors are focused on selling software solutions only. However, an integrated approach should be considered as a valid alternative. Vertical integration versus outsourcing part of the features should be discussed.

Define the value proposit ion : The best solution is one that can adapt to the practices already implemented by the customer – a tool for the customer as opposed to the “customer having to work for the tool”. It can be complemented alongside other services like consulting, training, project management, etc.

Ident i fy the main compet i tors : This benchmark report is a very good example of how this could be implemented. It is impossible to compete successfully without mastering the type and characteristics of the direct competitors in each target market.

Ident i fy ways to promote the product and serv ice offer : Communication of the value proposition through different channels is also critical for international positioning, especially when local channels and message styles are not easily grasped.

Ident i fy strong and weak points , l iab i l i t ies and r isks : As in many other projects and ventures, the political, social and business risks must be identified and mitigated against by a sound international risk management strategy for each target market.

The nature of the target market, namely the forces of change, and the strategy of the ICT Company will create the need for specific and more detailed positioning approaches. The Degree of Turbulence assessment tool (Heather C. Banham, 2010), was applied to assess the forces of change.

The goal of this tool is to aid SMEs in the assessment of their external relationships in international target markets. As with any other SMEs, ICT Portuguese Companies have limited or no control over the external environment and must face up to the forces of change if they are to survive and grow.


December 2013

79

The selected forces of change were:

Technological Advances.

Customer Expectations.

Partner Requirements.

Regulatory Environment.

Increased Competition.

The method to assess the Degrees of Turbulence factor is straightforward. First, based on an individual judgment, a quantitative value is assigned to each of the forces of change (in regard to the number of changes existing in the environment). Then to assess the strength of the force, each of the categories is considered again with special regard to the number of changes existing in the environment and a value is assigned based on an individual assessment of the influence on the SME under consideration (in this case, ICT Portuguese Companies). Finally, the value assigned to each force is multiplied by the value assigned to its strength.

Figure 40 . Forces of Change in the IM Global Market

Figure 40 shows that the most important forces of change are customer expectations (new features, mobility, cloud and new forms of interaction and collaboration) and increased competition (export market opportunities and the desire to compete globally).

67%

11%

89% 44%

89%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Technological Advances

Regulatory and Legal Environment

Customer Expectations Partner Requirements

Increasing Competition


December 2013

80

The forces for change multiplied by strength of the force equals 60%, which is the Degree of Turbulence factor for the IM global market. This not unusual for Portuguese ICT companies since they have limited market power and are easily subject to the forces of change. Even in situations of strong leadership and flexibility, the existence of limited resources and lack of market power are still prevalent.

Based on this result, Portuguese ICT companies are well advised to secure stable means of financing, to have flexibility within their operating structures, and to consider diversification for risk reduction. Portuguese ICT companies need to have a clear understanding of their operating environment in order to respond to forces of change proactively according to the business and/or strategic plan or respond reactively if the situation has not been previously considered in the planning process.

8.2 Entry Barr iers for ICT companies

According to Coad, A., Pellegrino. G. and Savona, M. – “Innovation Cockblock: obstacles to innovation along the innovation process”, at the 4th European Conference on Corporate R&D and Innovation: Financing R&D and Innovation for Corporate Growth in the EU (CONCORDi-2013), for companies wishing to innovate, the most significant barriers along the innovation cycle are:

Financial constraints.

Market/demand (competition, uncertainty of demand for innovative products).

Need to comply with regulations.

Knowledge (lack of qualified people, information on technology, information on markets).

Whenever a company attempts to do business in a new area, usually abroad, it inevitably encounters business entry barriers. Entry barriers are defined as any impediment or obstacle that the company may encounter when starting to do business in that particular area.

For example:

Product / Serv ice d if ferent iat ion : Local companies may have better brand identification and higher customer loyalty. This implies that the new entrants need to differentiate and adapt their own products and/or services they were selling in their home market to the new market. This translates into an increase in business development costs.

Capital requirements : Generally unavoidable, capital requirements are the financial resources that must be spent on infrastructure, R&D, marketing and sales. In order to reduce capital spending a company can always try to outsource those activities that are more costly and/or harder to conduct.

Cost d isadvantages : Local companies may have cost advantages that are unreachable to new entrants. Some of these factors can be the employee learning or experience curve, proprietary product technology, favourable locations, and government support and subsidies.

Government pol ic ies : Governments have the power to limit or even prevent foreign access to some industries in their country (e.g. licensing requirements, limiting resource access, etc.).


December 2013

81

For Portuguese ICT companies that wish to position themselves as vendors in the global IM market place, there are also a set of barriers and constraints that need to be understood and overcome:

Image, customer loyalty and brand awareness : The technological and innovative capabilities of Portuguese ICT companies are not well known in the external markets, especially in these already described. It is not easy to surpass this lack of awareness and market visibility. Therefore, the most appropriate strategy should be to use local partners to deliver the front end and customer interface, leaving the Portuguese ICT companies to handle the product development and supporting services.

Cultural : Issues like the language and the business culture need to be surpassed.

Funding : Access to financial incentives is generally more difficult for foreign companies, especially when they do not have a local branch.

Exclusive agreements with key d istr ibutors/partners : The small dimension of Portuguese ICT companies and their lack of credentials are also a hindrance when it comes to convincing and negotiating with local partners.

Government regulat ion : Regardless of the rules and best practices of Public Procurement, it is extremely difficult to compete with local companies in public sector contracts. Again, partnering could overcome this constraint.

Inte l lectual Property : The high costs of the patenting process, especially if it refers to global markets, discourages Portuguese ICT companies from investing in this form of protection of their intellectual property.

Exit barriers should also be considered. Since business environments are not static, they can always change and for the worst, all companies need to be prepared to face the problems posed by the very environment. As the expression suggests, a company wishing to relocate can encounter exit barriers to the closing of its business in a specific country and attempted move to another place. An example of an exit barrier that Portuguese ICT companies may encounter is specialised skill – relocation involves changing the business activity followed by the fact that the skills workers’ possess may not be the most suitable for the new business sector. This will inevitably result in higher reallocation costs.


December 2013

82

9 Main Conclusions

This last section sums up the most important findings to support Portuguese ICT Companies in their decision-making concerning external market positioning strategy.

9.1 Research Questions

This report addressed all the research questions and study objectives. The R&D+I key players were described in detail in section 2 (sample of 150 services and software vendors, regulation & governance, funding and financial incentives and public supporting and promotion organisations). The most representative R&D+I models and frameworks were described in section 3 and the software tools in section 4. The regions/countries, as well as the top industries/customers and the services/products that should be traced in more detail are described in section 6. In section 5 (best practices and capabilities) the experience and practices of customers was presented. Based on the experiences gathered from three ICT clusters it was possible to better understand the way they were managing innovation. The lessons learned from the “voice of the customer” (survey with nearly 70 respondents) should be taken in account particularly by IM vendors. Understanding the way the customer is managing the innovation process and the allocation of its resources is fundamental in the shaping of a competitive value proposition and a position internationally. Finally, Section 7 provides important insights about international positioning strategies and entry barriers.

9.2 Vendor Select ion Criter ia

This study covers vendors that offer explicit solutions for supporting the innovation process, including services and software like Strategy and Assessment, Idea Management (both generation and execution), Knowledge & Collaboration, Technology & Market Intelligence, Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation, and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Others like pure Project Management, Content Management and Workflow were considered too generic to be evaluated separately. All key vendors were discovered through web research methods and customer references.

9.3 Markets and Locations

The USA and the UK are the most attractive markets for vendors of IM products and services. This is based on the assumption that vendors only have a physical presence (head offices and branches) in markets they perceive as important business opportunities. Due to the level of IM maturity, typically measured by the adoption of IM practices and processes, and the traditional spending power on Digital Tools, these are the two markets where business opportunities are highest and based on existing growth demand have greatest potential to increase even further. Nevertheless, high growth economies like Brazil, China and India can also offer huge potential for IM vendors. Brazil is of special interest to Portuguese ICT companies because cultural and linguistic barriers are relatively small by comparison to other markets.


December 2013

83

9.4 Industr ies and Customers The two most attractive industries are Computing and Electronics, and Healthcare, based solely on potential industry growth, as determined by the R&D spending trends within these industries.

Telecom industry : Recent findings indicate an important growth in R&D investments in the near future.

Software and Internet industry : This industry invested the largest percentage of total R&D budget on Digital Enablers.

To have an idea of what the IM product and services market value can potentially be, data extracted from Booz & Company’s study “The Global Innovation 1000: Navigating the Digital Future, 2013” shows that the world’s biggest R&D spenders spent 8% of their R&D budget (USD 52 bn = USD 52,000,000,000) on Digital Enablers.

9.5 Products and Services A growing number of the vendors are focused on offering cloud software solutions. One of the reasons that explain this positioning is that selling software over the web does not involve customs tax, crossing country borders, physical barriers and other impediments. The advanced solutions should also embrace the emergent needs and features, the other trends in user engagement and adoption (mobile, game mechanics and integration with other applications) and the compliance with new innovation management standards and best practices. 9.6 State-of-the-art IM software appl icat ions The type of IM software features depends on the category of the software application that addresses the specific customer needs and expectations. Idea Management is the core IM application. It includes features like: Ideas Generation (Challenges, Collection, and Internal and External Evaluation), Knowledge Ecosystems, Idea Execution (Project Portfolio Management and Performance Measurement), Analytics, Adaptive Workflows and Game Mechanics.

Crowdsourcing and Open Innovation are in some way a subset of ideation focused on the external interface (submit challenges and receive ideas from the crowd through an innovation exchange platform). It includes challenge submissions (from companies), idea submissions (from the community of experts and innovators), open discussion, voting scheme configuration, reward and evaluation mechanisms and patent management.

Strategy and Assessment applications categories depend on the number and type of assessment latitudes (e.g. resources and the results), the possibility of using an off-line or an on-line platform (that requires an Internet connection), as well as benchmark capability (that allows comparing company/organisation results against the industry’s average and top performers).

The main features of Intellectual Property Management applications are patent management and trademark management. Others like invention submission, design, license and portfolio management, collaborative platform and the search of Internet databases and/or websites can also be provided to companies and individuals/inventors.

Technology and Market Intelligence applications help to design, search (relevant information by keywords/topics), gather, organise, analyse and distribute information within a company. The main features are: the Internet crawler, information analysis and classification (by relevance) and benchmarking.

Knowledge & Collaboration Software Applications include features like document management, group calendars, e-mail integration and discussion board. Mobile application support should also be taken into account. With these features it is possible to manage innovation teams and projects in a collaborative way with internal and external


December 2013

84

project members. It was found that many applications from the ideation area are integrating these collaborative project management features into their product suite.

9.7 State-of-the-art IM models and frameworks

Based on public announcements and publications, Open Innovation is the most used model by this sample of vendors. Even in situations where this is not the most accurate picture, Open Innovation continues to be a major concern and a growing best practice for designing and implementing IM systems in line with the principles of open collaboration and crowdsourcing.

9.8 Clusters Experience

Best practices gathered from three different clusters show that access to international contacts (through participation in EU projects, access to overseas offices in emerging economies and to a network of international researchers in ICT related areas), improvement of the research processes at universities, R&D centres and companies, development of joint projects with other key players, pitching-events held within the region, cross-sector cooperation with other industries, strong educational background, and a culture for technological development and innovation strategy (especially in Silicon Valley – San Francisco Bay) are the main drivers of innovation.

9.9 The Voice of the Customer

Findings from the qualified sample of 68 respondents from different companies (most of them from Manufacturing, Services and Technology) show that it is essential to define an innovation strategy amongst all stakeholders whilst at the same time ensuring that it aligned with organisational goals and the medium and long-term vision. This is very much in line with one of the main innovation drivers of ICT clusters, the culture for technological development and innovation strategy. It was also found that the majority of companies support their innovation processes with in-house resources. Nevertheless, it was recognised that the use of external resources (consulting services and software applications) affords them the ability to monitor, refresh and enhance the whole innovation process from the conception phase to the idea execution and innovation project phases.

9.10 International posit ioning strategies for Portuguese ICT companies

By applying the Degree of Turbulence assessment tool, it was possible to assess the most critical external relationships in international target markets and also identify the main forces of change (customer expectations: new features, mobility, cloud, new forms of interaction and collaboration; and increased competition: export market opportunities and the desire to compete globally). Secure and stable forms of financing, flexibility in operating structures, and consideration for risk reduction diversification are recommended.

Portuguese ICT companies wishing to position themselves in the highly competitive international innovation management business environment should consider offering an end-to-end solution (software and consulting services, covering the present and emergent customers expectations) based on a strong and solid relationship with local partners. Portuguese ICT companies need to have a clear understanding of their operating environment in order to respond to the forces of change proactively according to the business and/or strategic plan or respond reactively if the situation has not been previously considered in the planning process.


December 2013

85

9.11 Innovation Management ( IM) - Market Overview

The IM Market can be described as a highly competitive, fragmented and sophisticated market with innovative and mature vendors and innovation immature customers, although with demanding and emerging needs. It is somehow difficult to define a clear scope in terms of services and product categories. Besides the more traditional areas like idea management, new and complementary categories are being introduced by key vendors, making it an end-to-end offer of multiple interfaces with other tools and software applications that already exist in the customer companies.

The vendors are from the most competitive and knowledge intensive world regions: the USA, Canada, the UK, France and Germany. In terms of regions, Europe and North America account for nearly 80% of the market. Emerging economies are attractive only when their customer companies perceive the value of IM as a strategic discipline for their competitiveness.

Regardless of industry type (research shows that Computing & Electronics, Healthcare, Telecom, Software and the Internet are the most important industries), it is always possible to identify a perfect match between IM offerings of products and services and the demands of customer companies. This can happen more frequently when the management culture and the leadership style are in line with innovation values and recognition of the IM value proposition.


December 2013

86

B ibl iography

Publications and articles:

Barry Jaruzelski, John Loehr and Richard Holman, (2011), “The Global Innovation 1000: Why Culture is Key”, Booz&Company.

Barry Jaruzelski, John Loehr and Richard Holman, (2012),” The Global Innovation 1000: Making Ideas Work”, Booz&Company.

Barry Jaruzelski, John Loehr and Richard Holman, (2013), “The Global Innovation 1000: Navigating the Digital Future”, Booz&Company.

Barry Jaruzelski, Kevin Dehoff, (2010), “The Global Innovation 1000: How the Top Innovators Keep Winning”, Booz&Company.

Barry Jaruzelski , Matthew Le Merle, Sean Randolph, (2012), “The Culture of Innovation: What Makes San Francisco Bay Area Companies Different?”, A Bay Area Council Economic Institute and Booz & Company Joint Report.

Boutellier, Roman; Gassmann, Oliver and von Zedtwitz, Maximilian, (2000), “Managing Global Innovation.” Berlin: Springer. p. 30. ISBN 3-540-66832-2.

Clark, Charles H., (1980), “Idea Management: How to Motivate Creativity and Innovation”. New York: AMACOM.

Cooper, RG (1990), “Stage-Gate systems: a new tool for managing new products - conceptual and operational model”, Business Horizons, May-June: pp 44-53.

Galanakis, K (2006): Innovation Process: “Make sense using Systems thinking”.

Galanakis, K (2002): “A “Creative” Factory: An Innovation Systems Model Using a Systems Thinking Approach”.

Heather C. Banham, (2010), CGA, “External Environmental Analysis For Small And Medium Enterprises (SMEs)”, College, Canada, Journal of Business & Economics Research – October, Volume 8, Number 10.

Henry Chesbrough (2004), UC Berkeley, “Open Innovation: Renewing Growth from Industrial R&D”, 10th Annual Innovation Convergence, Minneapolis Sept 27.

João Caraça, Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Sandro Mendonça (2009). “The changing role of science in the innovation process: From Queen to Cinderella?”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 861-867.

João Caraça, Bengt-Åke Lundvall, Sandro Mendonça (2007). “A chain-interactive innovation model for the learning economy: Prelude for a proposal.” Technical University of Lisbon, School of Economics and Management.

Kelly, P. and Kranzburg M., (1978), “Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge.” San Francisco: San Francisco Press

M Porter (1998) “Clusters and the new economics of competition”, in Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec.

Niek D du Preez, Louis Louw, (2007); “A framework for managing the innovation process”, Stellenbosch University, Department of Industrial Engineering, South Africa Indutech (Pty) Ltd, Brandwacht Office Park, South Africa.

Tidd, Joe and Bessant, John., (2009), “Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change” 4e - first ed. with Keith Pavitt. Chichester: Wiley.

Trott, Paul, (2005), “Innovation Management and New Product Development.” Prentice Hall. ISBN 0273686437.

Trott, P. (2005). “Innovation Management and New Product Development”. 3rd edition. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.

Vanessa Thompson, (2013), IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Innovation Management Solutions 2013 Vendor Analysis.

W.M. Cohen, D.A. Levinthal, (1990) “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation”, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 128–152.


December 2013

87

Standards:

CEN/TS 16555-1:2013, Innovation Management - Part 1: Innovation Management System.

ISO 9000:2005, Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary.

NMX-GT-003-IMNC-2008, Sistema de Gestión de la Tecnología: Requisitos (Mexican standard, R&D+I).

NP 4457:2007, Gestão da Investigação, Desenvolvimento e Inovação - Requisitos do sistema de gestão da IDI (Portuguese standard, Management of Research, Development and Innovation, R&D+I, Management system requirements of R&D+I).

NP 4456:2007, Gestão da Investigação, Desenvolvimento e Inovação - Terminologia e definições das actividades de IDI (Portuguese standard, Management of Research, Development and Innovation, R&D+I, Terminology and definitions of R&D+I activities).

Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. OECD, Third Edition, 2005.

TIM-PD-001-STD:2013, Innovation Management Standard.

UNE 166002:2006, Gestión de la I+D+i: Requisitos del Sistema de Gestión de la I+D+i (Spanish standard, R&D+I management: R&D+I management system requirements).

Other:

InnovationManagement.se – Does Open Innovation Lead to Faster Growth? Accessed 2013.10.24. Link: http://www.innovationmanagement.se/2013/08/27/does-open-innovation-lead-to-faster-growth/

Internet trends D11 conference, dated May 2013.

MaRS – Barriers to Entry, Accessed 2013.11.14. Link: http://www.marsdd.com/articles/barriers-to-entry/

MarketView™ Report: IPM Systems for Corporations, provided by Hyperion Research, dated October 2011.

OpenInnovation.eu – What is Open Innovation? Accessed 2013.10.24. link: http://www.openinnovation.eu/open-innovation/


December 2013

88

Index of Figures

Figure 1 . Primary Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 . Secondary Data ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3 . Vendor Profile ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 . Technology Push Model ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Figure 5 . Market Pull Model ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 6. Coupling Model ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7 . Stage-Gate Model ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8 . Interactive Model ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 9 . Network Model ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 10 . The Creative Factory Systems ............................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 11 . The Open Innovation Model ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 12 . The Interactive Chain Model .................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 13. Innovator’s DNA Phase 2 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 14 . Innovator’s DNA Phase 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 15 . Innovator’s DNA Phase 4 ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 39 Figure 16 . Innovator’s DNA Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Figure 17 . Impr3ove Diamond Model ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 18 . Impr3ove Benchmarking Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 19 . Dimensions of Innovation ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 20 . Strategos Assessment Model ................................................................................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 21 . Arthur D. Little Assessment Model ..................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 22 . Patents ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 23 . Employment in Innovation Sectors .................................................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 24 . Innovation Strategy ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 25 . Innovation Processes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 26 . Strategy and Innovation Processes ................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 27 . NP4457:2007 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Figure 28 . External Consultants ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 29 . Innovation Management Perceived Value .................................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 30 . Use of IM Software Solutions ................................................................................................................................................................................. 65 Figure 31 . Software Companies Perceived Value ............................................................................................................................................................. 66 Figure 32 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices only (150 locations) ............................................................................................ 68 Figure 33 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices and International Branches (332 locations) – World Dis ...... 69 Figure 34 . Vendors Global Distribution – Head Offices and International Branches (332 locations) – Country Dis . 70 Figure 35 . Industry Distribution ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 36 . R&D Spending by Industry ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 37 . Trends in Industry R&D Spending 2009 - 2013 (millions of USD) - by industries ...................................................... 74 Figure 38 . Trends in Industry R&D Spending 2009 - 2013 (millions of USD) – by regions .......................................................... 75 Figure 39 . Estimated R&D Spending on Digital Enablers by Industry .............................................................................................................. 76 Figure 40 . Forces of Change in the IM Global Market ................................................................................................................................................. 79


December 2013

89

Index of Tables

Table 1. Example of Vendors ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Table 2. Requirements for R&D+I ....................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Table 3. Evolution of Innovation Management Frameworks......................................................................................................................................19 Table 4. Ideation Comparative Table ..........................................................................................................................................................................................33 Table 5. Crowdsourcing & Open Innovation Comparative Table .........................................................................................................................37 Table 6. Strategy & Assessment Comparative Table ....................................................................................................................................................44 Table 7. Intellectual Property (IP) Comparative Table ...................................................................................................................................................49 Table 8. Technology & Market Intelligence Comparative Table.............................................................................................................................52 Table 9. Knowledge & Collaboration Comparative Table............................................................................................................................................54


December 2013

90

Contact

[ Address ] Centro de Empresas Net - Rua de Salazares 842, 4149-002 Porto – Portugal

[ Phone ] +351 223 200 916

[ Fax ] +351 226 177 662

[ Contact Person ] Rui Patrício

[ Email ] [email protected]