R&D in the ICT industry Innovation, information and interaction

European ICT Poles of Excellence – Debating Concepts and Methodologies IPTS, Seville, 11-12 November 2010 R&D in the ICT industry Innovation, informa...
Author: Mervyn Summers
0 downloads 2 Views 1MB Size
European ICT Poles of Excellence – Debating Concepts and Methodologies IPTS, Seville, 11-12 November 2010

R&D in the ICT industry Innovation, information and interaction

Martti Mäkimattila Lappeenranta University of Technology – Lahti School of Innovation [email protected]

Overview for ICT poles of excellence discussion

R&D in ICT industry The complex nature and rapid change of modern technology in a turbulent and dynamic environment requires multiple actors participating in development activities, seldom one individual can develop new products or services alone in today’s business. Large inter- and intra-organizational teams performing collaborative systemic tasks meet the challenge of communicating and organizing integrated assignments. Traditional thinking of innovation processes is very linear and R&D oriented. The main task is to use scientific engineering knowledge to find answers to technical problems and to optimize those solutions within the technological, economical, environmental, legal, political and user related limitations. The engineering perspective, that process has to be broken down into phases and distinct stages of comprehensible extent has led to very linear and analytical models. (Like Cooper Stage-Gate, Waterfall etc.) This is also essential to synchronizing multiple simultaneous projects.

Anyhow it seems, that interpretative models are needed to aid, support and even replace linear models . R&D performance is often measured with tools coming from production process aspects. This leads R&D teams focusing on issues that are characteristic to executing linear straight forward tasks rather than supporting innovation actions, like exploring potential information and idea evaluations. List of references on last page

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Challenge of communicating and synchronizing tasks over unit and firm boundaries in collaborative R&D in ICT Mechanics, electronics, software, services etc…

Interacting, systemic loops variation in the level of openness and co-operation: Field related, firm related, phase related etc. IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Picture from Apilo & Taskinen

Systemic Innovations and Systemic Innovation Processes ―Systemic innovations have been defined as innovations whose ―benefits can be realized only in conjunction with related complementary innovations.‖ Chesbrough and Teece 2006 ―In systemic innovation processes firms need to coordinate as well with producers of complementary products and in many cases even with direct competitors to ensure the viability of the innovation, rather than coordinating solely with the suppliers and customers as is frequently the case in closed innovation models. While systemic innovation processes are widely practiced in industries such as telecommunications or information technology, the processes how incumbents and new entrants achieve this coordination and ultimately how they jointly create systemic innovation…‖ Keil, Salmenkaita and Salo 2006; Open Innovation in Systemic Innovation Context Systemic nature of ICTechnology innovations, service and social innovations, regulation (formal norms etc.) and customer informal norms and habits We are living in a dynamic world, pace of change is accelerating and systems are more complex => R&D is aiming to moving target in a changing environment, especially in ICT

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways Frank W. Geels & Johan Schot

Multi-level perspective on transitions F.W. Geels, J. Schot Research Policy 36 (2007) 399–417 (adapted from Geels, 2002, p. 1263).

Social capital and trust ―The most important resource for innovation systems and the most central target of an innovation policy that serves networking is social capital. When social capital is discussed from the perspective of the innovation system, it is not only one resource among others, but is also at the very core of competence in innovation. It enables networks to use tangible, financial and intellectual resources in each regional system and between regional systems. ‖ Professor Vesa Harmaakorpi

―Future of innovation is in trusting networks of knowledgeable individuals coming from different professional backgrounds, organizations and cultures. Trust makes it possible to share and create knowledge and simultaneously build norms and contracts that make fair value creation possible.‖ Professor Kirsimarja Blomqvist ―The open innovation model highlights the importance of using a wide range of sources of knowledge for a company’s innovation activities, including customers, collaborative firms, rivals and academics. Research stresses the significance of balancing the use of internal and external knowledge in R&D-processes, because critical knowledge can come from different sources.‖ Professor Marko Torkkeli

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Networks and Structural Holes, Burt 2004 Weak links, Granovetter 1973

(Burt 2004)

Innovation? Research and Development? The roles of networks, structural holes and weak links within activities

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Table. Distances of innovation networks Harmaakorpi et al (2006); Parjanen et al. (forthcoming).

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Networks - social capital and trust: Access to information, capability to use it FIRM A

FIRM B A

=

=>

B U

Open information sharing Filter: Reasons to prevent and hinder information exchange and utilization: The role of Laws, Contracts, Norms, IPR’s and Other reasons?

Universities and Research institutions

=

A

B U

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Limited result

STI - DUI Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) mode, is based on the production and use of codified scientific and technical knowledge. Doing, Using and Interacting (DUI) mode, relies on informal processes of learning and experience-based know-how ―At the level of the whole economy, the tension between the STI and DUI modes corresponds to a need to reconcile and combine approaches to national innovation systems focusing on the role of formal processes of R&D in order to produce explicit and codified knowledge with those focusing on the learning from informal interaction within and between organizations resulting in competence-building often with tacit elements.‖ ―At the level of the firm, this tension may be seen in the need to reconcile knowledge management strategies prescribing the use of ICT as tools for codifying and sharing knowledge with strategies emphasizing the role played by informal communication and communities of practice in mobilizing tacit knowledge for problem-solving and learning.‖ Morten Berg Jensen, Björn Johnson, Edward Lorenz, Bengt Ake Lundvall

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Collaborative innovation activities 5th Generation of Innovation Process (Rothwell) STI – DUI (Science, Technology, Innovation – Doing, Using, Interacting, Jensen et al.) R&D to C&D (Research & Development – Connect & Develop, P&G) Closed to Open Innovation (Chesbrough) Innovation activities are increasingly based on sharing information and interaction Roles of networks in every level, like communities of practice etc., Social capital, trust and contracts are important for collaboration Informal norms shifting to formal standards, diffusion of innovations Managing IP in collaborative innovation activities plays a key role: IPR – who owns what, laws and contracts The role of different IPR’s, like patents and copyrights, in global activities (Software and IT-systems linked to HW and content production) Short term employment and collaboration, free-lancers etc. working in several projects and firms, simultaneously or short term contracts in various firms, internationally Laws opening new innovation windows, but also causing inertia (institutions protecting their assets) IP protection mechanisms has been discussed widely, but not the accelerative effects of IP management as information sharing catalyst…

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Open Innovation, Chesbrough 2003 From Closed: Do-it-all-yourself approach and NIH (Not Invented Here) attitude To Open: Identify, understand, select from, and connect to available external knowledge Fill in the missing pieces of knowledge Integrate internal and external knowledge to form more complex combinations of knowledge, to create new systems and architectures Generate additional revenues and profits from selling research outputs to others Main issues: Benefiting from available external knowledge, both free and contract based R New business models Using IP lever, Intellectual Property Rights Co-operation

D

Outbound and Inbound The role of core technologies Like Connect and Develop, Open Innovation solution from Procter & Gamble Research portfolio surplus, spin offs etc. from Nokia and other ICT firms VTT - Intellectual Property in Open Business Models, Paasi et al. http://www.vtt.fi/proj/ipob/?lang=en VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland is a globally networked multitechnological contract research organization.

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Exploration, Exploitation (March) Absorptive Capacity (Cohen & Levinthal) Insight Inertia and Action Inertia (Godkin) Zahra & George (2000) Traditional model of absorptive capacity: Potential acap Acquisition

Assimilation

Realized acap Transformation

Exploitation

Todorova & Durisin (2007) Revised model of absorptive capacity Assimilation

Value recognition

Acquisition

”AAE”-learning

Alternative modes of learning, not consecutive ”ATE”-learning Transformation

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

T. Uotila

Information −

Partners participating in networked innovation processes on different sides of structural holes have different knowledge interests. They also have information of different quality and achieved for their own purposes (Melkas & Harmaakorpi, 2008).



Information not fitting in existing systems or otherwise considered negligible induces no actions for refining it to knowledge or being used as catalyst in information processing. When developing daily operational routines and systems some important aspects can be lost if the focus is only on efficiency. (Private and public organizations and their co-operation)



Organizational routines that have proven successful in the past in terms of exploration and exploitation of information may today be inadequate for transferring foresight information to innovation knowledge. Understanding how translation and interpretation are linked and how inertia forms, it allows us to generate information paths suitable for transferring foresight information to innovation knowledge. Speeding up of information transition processes is not enough, an intervention to add and combine complementary information is crucial as well as synchronization of these processes.

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

Challenges of ICT R&D Regulation and Science have an important role. Both should support innovation activities and learning by doing – interaction for business and general welfare. How to ensure fast and efficient information refinement in current and future pace of change? Foresight and innovation knowledge – exploring and exploitation in networks.

Time to market is not from the concept to launch, it should be thought from the recognized first signal of opportunity and capability of transfer it to business diffused to users / customers. Natural nodes of inbound and outbound information in business activities? The deep level of involvement – there are Asian firms (system suppliers) that can benchmark all major global firms in their own facilities, combine and learn, and are supported by very high level of scientific knowledge. What laws and norms have the risk of hindering collaborative innovation activities or utilization of innovations? IPR as a catalyst, not as an inertial force.

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

ICT Poles of world-class Excellence ? Challenge of defining ICT-industry? What are the roles of knowledge intensive R&D centres in certain areas, the interaction and information sharing between centers and parties in innovation activities, and the open innovation in this context? • • • •

What can be defined as ICT Poles of world-class Excellence, in particular in Europe? What are the necessary theoretical frameworks for studying the emergence and dynamics of such ICT Poles of world-class Excellence? What are the necessary methodological tools for studying ICT poles? What are the necessary data sources allowing for long-term tracking of the emergence and dynamics of such ICT poles?

IPTS Sevilla 11-12.11.2010

References Apilo, T. & Taskinen, T. (2006). Innovaatioiden johtaminen. VTT tiedotteita 2330. Espoo: Otamedia. 112 s. Blomqvist, K, P Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, N Nummela and S Saarenketo (2008). The role of trust and contracts in the internationalization of technology-intensive born globals. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25, 123–135. Burt, R. (2004). Structural Holes and Good Ideas, American Journal of Sociology, 110 (2), 349-399. Burt, R. (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110: 2, 349–399. Burt, R. (2005) Brokerage and Closure. An Introduction to Social Capital. Oxford University Press. Cohen, W. & Levinthal, D. (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 227 s. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 373 s. Cooper, R.G. (1998). Product Leadership: Creating and Launching Superior New Products. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books Group. 314 s. Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380. Godkin, L. (2010). The zone of inertia: absorptive capacity and organizational change. The Learning Organization, 17 (3), 196-207. Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop –inside P&G’s new model for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58-66. Jaspers, F. (2009). Organizing Systemic Innovation. ERIM PhD Series in Research In management, 160. 232 p. Jensen, M., Johnson B., Lorenz, E. & Lundvall, B. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy 36 (2007) 680–693 Luoma, T, J Paasi and K Valkokari (2010). Intellectual property in inter-organisational relationships findings from an interview study. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14, 399– 414. Lichtenthaler. U. (2009). Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: examining environmental influences R&D Management 39, 4, 2009. March, J.G. (19991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, Vol. 2. No 1, February 1991. Maula, M. V.J.; Keil, T. & Salmenkaita, J.-P. (2006) Open Innovation in Systemic Innovation Contexts. In Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. & West, J. (eds.) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 241-257. Melkas, H. & Harmaakorpi, V. (2008) Data, Information and Knowledge in Regional Innovation Networks: Quality Considerations and Brokerage Functions. European Journal of Innovation Management Vol. 11 No. 1, 2008 pp. 103-124. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995. Paasi, J., Luoma, T., Valkokari, T. & Nari, L. (2010). Knowledge and Intellectual property management in customer-supplier relationships. International Journal of Innovation Management. Vol 14, No. 4 (August 2010) pp.629-654 Pahl, G. & Beitz, W. Engineering Design. Parjanen, S., Melkas, H., Uotila, T. (forthcoming) Distances, knowledge brokerage and absorptive capacity in enhancing regional innovativeness: A qualitative case study of Lahti region, Finland. European Planning Studies. Pihkala, T. & Harmaakorpi, V. & Pekkarinen, S. (2007) The Role of Dynamic Capabilities in Breaking Socio-Institutional Inertia in Regional Development. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Volume 31, 4 December 2007, 836-52. Päällysaho, S. & Kuusisto, J. 2006. Osaamisen suojaaminen palveluja kehittävissä yrityksissä. Tekes käsikirja. 42 s. Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. Free Press. 551p. Rothwell, R., (1994)Towards the Fifth-generation Innovation Process. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK Journal: International Marketing Review Volume: 11 Number: 1 Year: 1994 pp: 7-31 Salmenkaita, J-P. & A. Salo (2004) Emergent foresight processes: industrial activities in wireless communications. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71 (2004) 897–912 Tidd, J., Bessant, J. & Pavitt, K. 2005. Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Third edition. 582 p. Todorova, G. & Durisin, B. (2007) Absorptive capacity: Valuing a Reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 2007, Vol. 32, No. 3, 774–786. Torkkeli, M., Hilmola, O., Salmi, P., Viskari, S., Käki, H. & Ahonen, M. (2007). Avoin innovaatio: Liiketoiminnan seitinohuet yhteistyörakenteet. Tutkimusraportti 190. Lappeenrannan teknillinen yliopisto. 242 s. Zahra S. A. & George, G. (2002) Absorptive capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization and Extension. Academy of Management Review 27: 2, 185–203. Valkokari, K, J Paasi, T Luoma and N Lee (2009). Beyond open innovation —The concept of networked innovation. Proceedings of 2009 ISPIM Symposium. New York. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.