Maturity Models of Open Innovation

Wim Vanhaverbeke

Goal

• Create a model that captures the evolution of mastery in working with open innovation

• Help diagnose where companies currently operate, and what is needed for the next step

Moving from “Open Innovation” to True Open Innovation

Frank Matteshttp

://innovationmanagement.se/2012/10/08/moving-from-open-innovation-to-true-open-innovation/ww.innovationmanagement.se

Difference # 1: Embedding

• Strategically embedded OI– true OI is a deliberate choice

• Organizationally embedded OI– Openness is not woven into the organizational fabric of the

whole firm.• Cultural embedded OI

– True OI is part of the corporate culture and present in all formal and informal cultural traits (e.g. metrics, leadership style, talent development processes, communication style)

Difference # 2: Proactivity

• True OI has a proactive mindset which becomes manifests in the planning processes.

• start the planning process with an opportunity-based thinking. – “How much can we leverage our existing

innovation manpower?”– explored and turned into roadmaps and R&D

projects.

Difference # 3: The rigor in pursuing openness

• extends the firm’s innovation ecosystem as far as it makes sense

• Use your partners to reach out further

Open Innovation maturity model with four stages (1/2)

• Stage I: Experimentation. – initiatives driven by single Business Units– a project-based resource allocation – pilot runs with selected new open approaches to innovation. – 60% of firms are in this stage (Forrester).

• Stage II: Commitment. – CxO support for OI– formal resources are reserved for OI– the first steps towards organizational embedding – preliminary cost-benefit analyses – 30% of firms are in this stage (Forrester).

Open Innovation maturity model with four stages (2/2)

• Stage III: Sustainable state. – a CxO mandate for OI– significant formal resources allocated to OI– solid cost-benefit analyses in place– continuous use of new open approaches to innovation. – 9% of firms have achieved this stage (Forrester).

• Stage IV: Full integration. – final stage of OI maturity is characterized by the traits of stage III plus – cultural embedding of OI– well-defined and well-managed innovation networks, – seamless integration of Enterprise 2.0 and Open Innovation– Shareholder Value justification of the investment in Open Innovation. – Maximal 1% of the firms are in this stage (Forrester).

IJIM - 2011ENKEL, BELL & HOGENKAMP

Framework for open innovation maturity

• Framework for open innovation maturity is a combination of core elements of open innovation processes and five maturity levels– Open innovation processes include climate for innovation,

partnership capacity, and internal processes– Maturity levels include initial/arbitrary, repeatable, defined,

managed and optimizing

• Open innovation processes at different maturity levels are associated with specific organizational behaviors

Climate for innovation

• little initiative taking• accidental opportunity spotting

• verbal management support• informal success sharing• targets at lower levels• informal assessment• individual initiatives• arbitrary screening

• written OI strategy• success sharing by management• targets based on strategy• assessment partly OI based• champions appointed• screening by champions

• strategy encouraged by management• regulated success sharing• targets set and communicated• champions awarded based on OI targets• champions encourage initiative taking• scouts assigned

• management “walks the walk”• strategic success sharing• continuous adjustment of targets• OI-based assessment• initiative taken in whole

organization• wide focus on external

opportunities

Partnership capacity

• affection-based collaboration; • arbitrary partnering, individual initiatives

• few, informal partnerships• informal standardization, no plan• satisfy own organization• few, dominant forms• selection based on• affection and experience; • skills through experience

• short during partnerships• partial standardization• behavioural guidelines• Diversity among few partners• previously used partners network• selection based on network experience• training through example setting

• focus, endurance in partnerships• partnering tools used, clear ownership• management actively encourages

satisfaction of partners• specific forms, diverse partners• diverse network expansion• strategy based selection• training in partnering

• both standardization and specification

• satisfaction of partners monitored• diversity along value chain• selection criteria based on

proactive strategy• sharing of partnership expertise

Internal processes

• informal communication of initiatives• commitment based solely on friendships• knowledge not shared• individual absorption• no identification of results• protective legal system

• low level monitoring• limited sharing of facilities• reputation-based commitment• Knowledge informally shared in team• results thrown ‘over the wall’• strict IP conditions

• centralized reporting• regular meetings• opening facilities• on demand budget for meeting commitments• occasional inter-department knowledge sharing• absorption of knowledge actively encouraged• managers monitor progress• trust-based IP and legal attitude

• linking initiatives• communication via intranet• start-up shared facilities• structural budget• project owners facilitate intraorganizational

knowledge sharing• start process monitoring of results• long-term view on IP

• internal and external information gathering

• contacting via central position• network facilities• OI integrated in budget• knowledge accessible in database• monitoring process in place• win-win contracts

An immature OI company

An mature OI company

Questions

• What would you add or change to each stage?• Are there missing stages, based on your

experience?• Where would you place your organization on

this scale at this time?• Where do you hope to be in one year?