Difference between revisions of "Scenario 3 - Open Big Brand World"

From ScenarioThinking
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(35 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
[[File:brandwins.jpg|350px|right]]
<b>5 words define this world:</b><br>
* Brand leverage<br>
* Social platforms <br>
* Company lead <br>
* Low risk <br>
* Open innovation <br><br>
<b>2030 - State of the world</b><br>
In 2030, big companies companies with heavy brands have redefined the world of innovation.  Companies realised that to succeed, low-risk open innovation would only work at scale if exponential incrementalism could be adopted:  let us consider this global think tank, this idea generating machine and make it exponential!  Let it reach and attract the masses of good ideas, of the right ideas.  Let it be organised.  What did the companies need?  They needed the platform for which to efficiently capture, organise and implement the ideas.  They took crowd-sourcing and coupled it with the world of social media as its platform.  They integrated open innovation in the very fabric of their organisations and created an openly innovated incentive system to match.  In this world, companies are transparent and leverage their brand strength to pave the creative way to a more competitive future. <br>
<br>
<br>
In <b>2010</b>, Proctor & Gamble Co (P&G) had been successful in inventing a new company innovation process and transformed & open innovation model was widely known and openly discussed in company strategy discussions.  The new method leveraged the strength of their brand, embraced and plugged into various networks of external expertise to draw ideas for subsequent in-house development.  In the five years from 2010, elements of the P&G model were being mimicked by leading companies, across several industries.  In terms of geographical take-up, companies in Japan, Singapore and America were most receptive to the new management innovation and first off the blocks in extensively adopting the new model in search for a new competitive edge. <br>
 
==2010 - 2015==
In <b>2010</b>, Proctor & Gamble Co (P&G) had been successful in implementing a new company innovation process and transforming & open innovation model was widely known and frequently discussed in corporate board rooms across the globe.  What made it particularly attractive was the ability for bigger companies to adopt a scalable low-risk innovation model.  How were they doing it? The key ingredient for these companies was to leverage their brand to attract and plug into .  The end result was an extensive innovation network of external expertise to draw ideas for subsequent in-house development.  <br>
<br>
<br>
Whilst for many companies successful innovation relied on both on idea development and successful implementation, the component of these that was considered key in that it provided the distinct competitive edge, was the capture of the , i.e. having the right concept to start with.  And so in the early years, open innovation models also concentrated on the idea capture interface.  In particular, the evolution of two common structural elements prevailed to support the effective capture of ideas: the inand the .  Taken in combination, and the business. <br>
In the five years from 2010, elements of the P&G model were being mimicked by leading companies, across several industries.  In terms of geographical take-up, companies in Japan, India and America were most receptive to trialling the new innovation model at scale and were first off the blocks in extensively adopting the new model in search for a new competitive edge. <br>
[[File:pharma world.jpg|400px|right]]
Concurrently, the closed innovation model started to falter.  Companies such as Google continued to battle legal challenges in the world of patents.  Frustrated by the growing tide of infringements and limitations of their largely closed innovation models, change was coming. Big steps from Apple in publicizing the interface to their i-Phone operating system accelerated adoption and bolstered sales.  A whopping $10M prize from Google was offered to the winning application developed for their open-source Android platform.  In the face of such increased competition, closed innovation companies such as Nokia were reconsidering their innovation engines and looking to open up to external groups and software developers.  Elsewhere, in the Pharma space, where traditional IP rights rule, growing product development costs were also forcing change.  Pharma companies were wary of the in this respect, as it was considered a risk to be first to open up their IP and test the open innovation model.  However, some companies, such as Eli Lilly, began to embrace open innovation platforms, and offered partial but sufficient IP disclosure, to successfully lure external parties for product development.   <br>
<br>
<br>
The development of the the creation of new internal positions, filled by cross-functional, highly motivated and connected people. to break the deep rooted internal culture barrier from previous R&D structures.  The team was designed specifically to act as a living interface for the company and promote the open-source innovation concept.  , the team had two critical roles: completing the initial idea merit assessment and efficiently organising the multitude of ideas that were cropping up from the global think tank.   <br>
Whilst for many companies successful open innovation relied on both on idea development and successful implementation, the component of these that was considered key in that it provided the distinct competitive edge, was the capture of , i.e. having the right concept to start with.  And so in the early years, open innovation models also concentrated on the idea capture interface.  In particular, the evolution of two common structural elements prevailed to support the effective capture of ideas: the and Taken in combination, these elements formed the of the . <br>
<br>
<br>
The involved establishment of several key network links, as facilitated by consulting companies.  These consultants specialised in linking up companies with government, university and private research centres.  With the initial spread of the open innovation model through companies, so to these consulting groups began to cross industries and countries. <br>
[[File:consultant service.jpg|300px|left]]
The involved the creation of new internal positions, filled by cross-functional, highly motivated and connected people.  , and so also helped to break the deep rooted internal culture barrier from previous R&D structures.  The team was designed specifically to act as a living interface for the company and promote the open-source innovation , the team had three critical roles: 1) designing the incentive scheme to appropriately reward budding external innovators; 2) efficiently organising the multitude of ideas that were cropping up from the global think tank; and 3) completing the initial idea merit assessment.   <br>
<br>
<br>
During <b>2015-2020</b>, a wave of copycat open-innovation models followed.  Due mainly to the success demonstrated by big-brand players, and the receptive public environment, companies which had previously stuck to traditional R&D models were rethinking their strategy.  Mounting financial regulation in the wake of the financial crisis and growing environmental regulations were also putting pressure on company bottom lines.  In the face of these additional costs, companies needed to look at innovative ways to remain competitive, and were more and more turning towards cutting edge innovation models.  The onslaught of open-innovation models buoyed the industry and led to the development of the next generation of idea capture systems.  Again, this centred on two focal points:  the and the open innovation model took a larger hold, so too did the need for company technology interface experts.  This precipitated a trend of new course content and degree specialisations in both management schools and universities to cater for demand of the new job classification. In the space created by companies seeking a network of external experts, consulting groups were aggressively seeking out and enlisting on their network database all newly retired industry experts.  Further, in this external link space, growing demand on consultancies to provide the innovation world led consultancies to implement on-line platforms.  This meant a larger reach to companies, and faster network link service.  Amongst this, larger consultancies dominated in brand and a reinforcing cycle of company to network connection solidified these consultancies as the preferred players in the network linking service.  Alongside this, freeware connection services, run by public forum and interest groups emerged; these allowed experts to self-list, and companies to self-channel their desired network.  In the first few years, the success of these independent free linking services was limited, mainly due to concerns from companies as to the validity of expert claims and robustness of their client and university database. <br>
, but generally involved establishment of several key network links, as facilitated by consulting companies.  These consultants specialised in linking up companies with government, university and private research centres.  They were adept at tapping the right knowledge network and helping the company to leverage their brand to create meaningful open innovation networks. With the initial spread of the open innovation model through companies, so to these consulting groups began to cross industries and countries. <br>
<br>
<br>
The early <b> 2020s</b> brought a slight twist to the structure of the prevalent open-innovation model.  the the extra cost but also due to the rigid nature of the typical consultant services, and the rise of the innovation experts, company IT platforms evolved to create a dynamic online network link to innovation network services.  This streamlined system, allowed both a faster response time to company issues and a streamlined and organised response of ideas.  For example, company personnel were able to present the particular problem statement through this online interface, and innovation experts are drawn automatically and appropriately to the online forum.  The resultant innovation system was further reaching, cheaper and more efficient.  Notably during this period, additional environmental regulation was putting extreme pressure on carbon related supply chain costs, forcing companies to seek innovative ways to ease the cost burden.  Countries such as the US are particularly forced to lead this charge, as domestic transportation and import related carbon transport charges escalate.  Once again, the US leads the open innovation world, with Japan and Singapore closely following suit, in their ties to import and export related trade.   
 
Elsewhere in the innovation industry, the traditional venture capital mechanisms, ever present in countries such as the US, had lessened.  Entrepreneurs were draw to the open and accessible company innovation networks as a source of problems to solve, concepts to test or even reputation to be gleaned through association with the big company names. At this same time, and complementing the switch of some entrepreneurs to the company innovation scene, social networks and the level of people connectivity continued to expand.  Specifically, this social network took on a new role in the innovation world of the online company innovation platforms:  innovation ideas proffered by individuals or groups of individuals through the and so companies had to offer more than the typical monetary and name sake reward to successful idea contributors: it had to redefine its reward system. <br>
==2015 - 2020==
[[File:pressures.jpg|120px|right]]
During <b>2015-2020</b>, a wave of copycat open-innovation models followed.  With the rising receptiveness of the public environment to the open innovation world and the successful adoption of the open innovation model by several big brand players, companies with traditional R&D models were rethinking their innovation strategy.  Mounting financial regulation in the wake of the financial crisis and growing environmental regulations were also putting pressure on company bottom lines.  In the face of these additional costs, companies needed to look at innovative ways to remain competitive, and were more and more turning towards cutting edge open innovation models.  The onslaught of open-innovation models buoyed the industry and led to the development of the next generation of idea capture systems.  Again, this centred on two focal points:  the and the .   <br>
<br>
<br>
From <b>2025</b>, with efficient and mature idea capture the norm from open innovation platforms, companies looked for new ways to improve their innovation models.  The (until then) <br>
<br>
 
==2020 - 2025==
<br>
<br>
 
==2025 - 2030==
From <b>2025</b>, with efficient and mature idea capture the norm from open innovation platforms, companies looked for new ways to improve their innovation models.  Two things happened:  the social network interface evolved and the in-house innovation implementation was overhauled.  <br>
<br>
Up until
<br>
Also, the
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[[Future of Innovation Main Page]]
[[Future of Innovation Main Page]]

Latest revision as of 11:02, 9 September 2010

Retrieved from "https://www.scenariothinking.org/index.php?title=Scenario_3_-_Open_Big_Brand_World&oldid=187618"