entrepreneurship & innovation · pdf file• technopreneurship: ... innovation is not...

ENTREPRENEURSHIP & INNOVATION

MANAGEMENT

January, 2012 Marcello Tonelli

DAY _1 : 6hrs

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS

1. Innovation – Entrepreneurship – Economic Development

2. Innovation Concepts

Collaboration Strategies

3. Strategic Management of Innovation

4. Organizing for Innovation

5. Managing New Product Development Process

6. Managing New Product Development Teams

7. Conclusions

8. Social Innovation

Implementing

Innovation

Strategies

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION

Innovation

GEM Study

Australia

Economic Development

ENTREPRENEURSHIP

1. What is Entrepreneurship?

ENTREPRENEURSHIP DEFINITIONS

• Starting a business

• Being self-employed

• Undertake an effort to transform innovations into economic goods

• The catalyst to growth

• Creating new opportunities

• Any activity that adds value to a business, an organization, supply chain,

value chain, .... anything where there is commerce... or not

Value, success: TBL

Entrepreneurship is...

THE FIELD OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP

• High growth entrepreneurship

• Social entrepreneurship: organize, create and manage a venture with the

emphasis towards social change.

• Corporate entrepreneurship: the process whereby an individual or a group of

individuals, in association with an existing organisation, create a new

organisation or instigate renewal or innovation within that organisation

(Sharma and Chrisman 1999)

• Indigenous entrepreneurship

• Women entrepreneurship

• Immigrant entrepreneurship

• Technopreneurship: university spinouts

• Youth entrepreneurship

• Necessity/survival entrepreneurship

• Entrepreneurship education/training

• Family business

ENTREPRENEURSHIP NEXUS

Remote Environment

Close Environment

CREATOR(S) CREATING PROCESS NEW VALUE

CREATION

Individuals

Teams

Organizations

Opportunity discovery

and assessment

Exploitation decisions

Resource

accumulation and

gestation

New venture

creation (and

subsequent

development)

Innovations

INNOVATION

GEM Study

Australia

Economic Development

ENTREPRENEURSHIP & INNOVATION

Creative destruction: economic change revolves around innovation

(Schumpeter 1942)

The essence of entrepreneurship is innovation (Drucker, 1985) leading to

‘value’ creation (Khandwalla, 1987).

Entrepreneurship is about new value creation in the form of innovation

(Gartner 1985; Zahra et al. 1999).

DEFINING INNOVATION

2. What is Innovation?

INNOVATION

Innovation is not invention in that innovation refers to the use of a new idea or method,

whereas invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.

Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, or

ideas [technologies] that are accepted by users [desirability], and proposed at the right

time according to governments and society [viability].

What is

viable in the

marketplace

What is

possible with

technology

What is

desirable to

users

Innovation

INNOVATION

I invented nothing new. I simply assembled into a car the discoveries

of other men behind whom were centuries of work... Had I worked

fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed. So it is with

every new thing. Progress happens when all the factors that make for

it are ready, and then it is inevitable. To teach that a comparatively

few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is

the worst sort of nonsense

– Henry Ford

INNOVATION

Al Bundy in ‘Married with Children; God’s

Shoes Episode – November 3, 1991

Vibram FiveFingers – 2005

Viktor & Rolf Sock Boots - 2009

Married With Children - God's Shoes.avi

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

GEM Study

Australia


It is widely acknowledged that entrepreneurship is a key driver for economic

development. New businesses often introduce innovations into the market, create

jobs and help to secure the competitiveness of the national economy (Acs & Szerb,

2009).

Entrepreneurship Economic

Development

Job Creation

Innovation

Productivity Growth

Entrepreneurship (attitudes, activity and aspirations) is affected by national conditions.

Entrepreneurs with high aspirations materialize better in countries with a stable

economic and political climate and well-developed institutions (in fact they may

migrate to other countries to pursue their ideas).


Factor-Driven Economies

Algeria*, Guatemala*, Jamaica*, Lebanon*, Morocco, Saudi Arabia*, Syria*, Kingdom of

Tonga, Uganda, Venezuela*, West Bank and Gaza Strip, Yemen.

Efficiency-Driven Economies

Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile*, China, Colombia, Croatia*, Dominican

Republic, Ecuador, Hungary*, Iran, Jordan, Latvia*, Malaysia, Panama, Peru, Romania*,

Russia*, Serbia, South Africa, Tunisia, Uruguay*.

Innovation-Driven Economies

Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland,

Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland,

United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, United States.

*Country in transition to a more advanced stage


As an economy matures and its wealth increases, one may expect the emphasis in industrial activity to gradually shift toward an expanding service sector that caters to the needs of an increasingly affluent population and supplies the services normally expected of a high-income society.

The industrial sector evolves and experiences improvements in variety and sophistication. Such a development would be typically associated with increasing research & development and knowledge intensity, as knowledge-generating institutions in the economy gain momentum.

This development opens the way for the advance of innovative, opportunity-seeking entrepreneurial activity that is not afraid to challenge established incumbents in the economy. Often, small and innovative entrepreneurial firms enjoy an innovation productivity advantage over large incumbents, enabling them to operate as ‘agents of creative destruction.’

To the extent that the economic and financial institutions created during the scale-intensive phase of the economy are able to accommodate and support opportunity-seeking entrepreneurial activity, innovative entrepreneurial firms may emerge as significant drivers of economic growth and wealth creation.

In innovation-driven economies, the proportion of opportunity-driven versus necessity-driven entrepreneurship is expected to be higher than in factor- and efficiency-driven economies.

Entrepreneurship in Innovation-Driven Economies

INNOVATION

Given entrepreneurship's potential to support economic growth, it is

the policy goal of many governments to develop a culture of

entrepreneurial thinking. This can be done in a number of ways: by

integrating entrepreneurship into education systems, legislating to

encourage risk-taking, and national campaigns.

Government Strategies

INNOVATION

Australia

GEM

ACE is the Australian partner for the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

(GEM) which measures entrepreneurial activity in more than 80 countries.

Each national team conducts a survey of at least 2,000 adult individuals (a

representative sample) annually using a proven methodology (see

http://www.gemconsortium.org). The main indicator of entrepreneurship is

the Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial Activity rate (TEA) which measures

the propensity of a country to be entrepreneurial. (Reynolds 1998)

The GEM STUDY

(Global Entrepreneurship Monitor)

http://www.gemconsortium.org/







1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009

54 APS: Data Sets per Year

Total

180,297

1,233,500

2008

AUSTRALIA

BUT WHERE DOES AUSTRALIA

RANK IN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER

MAJOR INNOVATION-DRIVEN

ECONOMIES?

AUSTRALIA

With 7.8% of the adult population involved in setting up a new business or owning a

newly founded business (TEA rate), Australia ranks second only to Iceland among

the innovation-driven (developed) economies – GEM Global Report 2010.

Entrepreneurship is alive and well in Australia

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Italy

Jap

an

Belg

ium

Den

mark

Germ

an

y

Sp

ain

Po

rtu

ga

l

Slo

ven

ia

Sw

ed

en

Sw

itzerl

an

d

Gre

ece

Isra

el

Fin

lan

d

Fra

nc

e

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Ko

rea

Irela

nd

Neth

erl

an

ds

Un

ited

Sta

tes

No

rway

Au

str

ali

a

Icela

nd

Innovation-driven economies

Perc

en

tag

e o

f ad

ult

po

pu

lati

on

betw

een

18–64

95%

Confidence

Intervals

Point

Estimates

AUSTRALIA

The GEM data clearly show that Australia also compares well with other major

economies in terms of the “quality” of entrepreneurial activities being pursued.

Indeed, not only the quantity of entrepreneurs but also their aspiration and business

goals are important drivers for economic growth.

On average for each business started in Australia out of the necessity to earn a living

due to a lack of alternatives, there are three businesses where the founders want to

take advantage of a lucrative business opportunity in order to increase their personal

income or enjoy greater independence.

With respect to job growth expectations, a respectable 10% of the entrepreneurs aim

to grow their businesses larger than 20 employees in the next five years.

Both these indicators are higher than the average for innovation-driven economies.

Slightly below average is the international orientation of Australian entrepreneurs.

Most likely due to the large distances from international markets just 10% aim at a

substantial share of customers from international markets.

Quality of entrepreneurial activities

AUSTRALIA

So what are the drivers for this high quantity and quality of entrepreneurship in Australia?

The data point to a combination of both business opportunities and entrepreneurial skills.

Approximately 50% of the Australian population perceive opportunities to start-up and

state that they have the necessary skills to start a business.

Furthermore a large majority of the Australian population report high media attention for

entrepreneurship in Australia providing successful role models for prospective

entrepreneurs.

As a result 8.7% of our respondents have the intention to start a business within the next

three years. These numbers are all well above average when compared to the other

major economies.

Drivers of entrepreneurial activity

AUSTRALIA

We also find a very high proportion of female entrepreneurs. Australia is the only

major country where men and women participate equally in this important economic

activity. This paints a healthy picture of access to entrepreneurial opportunities for

Australian women.

Female entrepreneurship is thriving in Australia

Percentage of Female

Entrepreneurs in 2010

in Innovation-Driven

Economies: Source GEM

Global Report 2010

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Kore

a

Japan

Norw

ay

Irela

nd

Isra

el

Denm

ark

Slo

venia

Port

ugal

Icela

nd

Fin

land

United K

ingdom

Germ

any

Sw

eden

Gre

ece

Spain

Neth

erla

nds

Fra

nce

Italy

Sw

itzerla

nd

Belg

ium

United S

tate

s

Austr

alia

% o

f F

em

ale

Entr

epre

neurs

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies

Main Source: Strategic Management of Technological Innovation – Melissa A. Schilling

TYPES OF INNOVATION

1. Product vs. Process Innovation Honda: hybrid electric vehicle

Biotechnology firm: a genetic algorithm that can quickly search a set of

disease-related genes to identify a target for therapeutic intervention.

2. Radical vs. Incremental Innovation 3G wireless communication technology

From exposed keyboard to flip cover; new service plans; etc.

3. Competence-enhancing vs. Competence-destroying Innovation Hewlett-Packard: handheld calculator

Keuffel Esser slide ruler

4. Architectural vs. Component Innovation Transition from high-wheel bicycle to bicycles with gears

Dunlop (pneumatic tires); Raleigh (three speed)

IMPACT OF INNOVATION ON SOCIETY

YEAR INVENTION

1800 - 1800 Electric battery

- 1804 Steam locomotive

- 1807 Internal combustion

engine

- 1809 Telegraph

- 1817 Bicycle

1820 - 1821 Dynamo

- 1824 Braille writing system

- 1828 Hot blast furnace

- 1831 Electric generator

- 1836 Five-shot revolver

1840 - 1841 Bunsen battery

- 1842 Sulfuric ether-based

anesthesia

- 1846 Hydraulic crane

- 1850 Petroleum refining

- 1856 Aniline dyes

1860 - 1862 Gatling gun

- 1867 Typewriter

- 1876 Telephone

YEAR INVENTION

- 1939 Atom fission

1940 - 1942 Aqua lung

- 1943 Nuclear reactor

- 1947 Transistor

- 1957 Satellite

- 1958 Integrated circuit

1960 - 1967 Portable calculator

- 1969 ARPANET

- 1971 Microprocessor

- 1973 Mobile phone

- 1976 Supercomputer

- 1981 Space shuttle

- 1987 Disposable contact

lenses

- 1989 HD television

- 1990 WWW protocol

- 1996 Wireless Internet

2000 - 2003 Map of human

genome

YEAR INVENTION

- 1877 Phonograph

- 1878 Incandescent light

bulb

1880 - 1885 Light steel

skyscrapers

- 1886 Internal combustion

automobile

- 1887 Pneumatic tire

- 1892 Electric stove

- 1895 X-ray machine

1900 - 1902 Air conditioner

- 1903 Wright biplane

- 1906 Electric vacuum

cleaner

- 1910 Electric washing

machine

- 1914 Rocket

1920 - 1921 Insulin

- 1927 Television

- 1928 Penicillin

- 1936 Computer

Innovation enables a wider range of goods and services to be

delivered to people worldwide. In this way it can be described

as the catalyst of economic development.

IMPACT OF INNOVATION ON SOCIETY

THE GREAT MAN THEORY OF INNOVATION

Edison did not invent the light bulb, but the idea of how that

could be brought together with other elements to change the

way we live. While his first patent application for a light bulb

was declined because too similar to one filed 40 years earlier,

he ended up with 368 patents around the system of electric

lighting.

Nothing Microsoft has ever made money on was developed

internally. MS-DOS (Seattle Computer Company), Excel (Lotus

123), Word (Xerox PARC), Windows (Apple’s Macintosh)

Henri Ford did not invent the first car. His ideas was mass

production and to do so he combined four existing core

technologies:

• Interchangeable parts

• Continuous flow of production through the chain

• Assembly line

• Electric motor

The Great Man Theory of Innovation.

As society we tend to recall an idea and a single man in a single

point in time. But is this what really happens?

Johann Gutenberg Printing press 1450

Christopher Columbus America 1492

James Watt Steam engine 1769

Eli Whitney Cotton gin 1793

Michael Faraday Electric motor 1821

Cyrus McCormick Reaper 1831

Samuel Colt Revolver 1835

Samuel Morse Telegraph 1837

Alfred Nobel Dynamite 1866

Alexander Graham Bell Telephone 1876

Thomas Edison Light bulb 1879

Marchese Marconi Radio 1895

Wright Bros Airplane 1903

Henry Ford Automobile 1908

Picasso Cubism 1910

Philo T. Farnsworth Television 1925

Alexander Fleming Penicillin 1928

William Shockley Transistor 1948

Watson & Crick The double-helix 1953

Elvis Presley Rock and roll 1954

Bill Gates Personal computers 1984

Steve Jobs iPod 2001

WHAT IS INNOVATION ?

Most of what we look at as innovation is not truly new. The true

breakthroughs, the things that change society overnight, do so not because

they are new.

The novelty is not what drives the breakthrough. It is the combination, the

particular way in which they are used.

Innovation is about connecting, not inventing. It is about taking the pieces that

are already out there and finding ways to put them together in combinations

and bring them to people who have never seen them before.

That’s how profound change happens!

NETWORK IS THE KEY

SOURCES OF INNOVATION

3. What Are Sources of Innovation?

SOURCES OF INNOVATION

Linkages between different components (firm’s relationships with customers,

technology transfer from universities to firms, etc.)

Sources of Innovation as a System

Individuals Universities

Private

Nonprofit

Government

Funded

Research

Firms

SOURCES OF RESEARCH WORK

R&D by firms is the major source of firm innovation

Roberts, E. (2001) Benchmarking Global Strategic Management of

Technology, Research Technology Management, 25-36.

Firms’ Rank Ordering of the Importance of Sources for R&D Work 1999

Rank Order of Sources of Research Work Rank Order of Sources of Development Work

1 Central corporate research Internal R&D within divisions

2 Internal R&D within divisions Central corporate research

3 Sponsored university research Suppliers’ technology

4 Recruited students Joint ventures/alliances

5 Continuing education Licensing

6 University liaison programs Customers’ technology

7 Consultants/contract R&D Continuing education

8 Joint ventures/alliances Acquisition of products


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1953 1958 1963 1968 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2002

U.S. Spending on R&D by Source, 1953-2002 (Billions $)

Total R&D Industry

Federal government Other non-federal government


Percent of R&D Funds by Source and Country, 1999

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Industry

Government

Other domestic

Abroad

COLLABORATION STRATEGIES

New Research Joint Ventures Registered under the US National Cooperative

Research Act 1985-2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Do

me

sti

c R

ese

arc

h J

oin

t V

en

ture

s


Worldwide Formation of New Technology or Research Alliances, 1980-2000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Ne

w S

tra

teg

ic T

ech

no

log

y A

llia

nce

s


Technology Alliance Strategies

Source: From Y. Doz and G. Hamel, 1997, “The Use of Alliances in

Implementing Technology Strategies.” In M.L. Tushman and P. Anderson,

Managing Strategic Innovation and Change.

A

GE-SNECMA

alliance

B

Corning Glass

Alliances

C

Thomson-JVC

alliance

D

Aspla

Individual Alliance Network of Alliances

Capability

Complementation

Capability

Transfer


Summary of Trade-offs between Different Modes of Development

Speed Cost Control Potential for

Leveraging

Existing

Competences

Potential for

Developing New

Competencies

Potential for

Accessing

Other Firms’

Competences

Solo Internal

Development

Low High High Yes Yes No

Strategic

Alliances

Varies Varies Low Yes Yes Sometimes

Joint ventures Low Shared Shared Yes Yes Yes

Licensing In High Medium Low Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes

Licensing Out High Low Medium Yes No Sometimes

Outsourcing Medium/High Medium Medium Sometimes No Yes

Collective

Research

Organizations

Low Varies Varies Yes Yes Yes

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies


STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OF INNOVATION

4. Why do so many innovation projects fail to generate an

economic return?

THE IMPORTANCE OF STRATEGY

Most innovative ideas do not become successful products (1:3,000) –Stevens,

G. and Burley, J. (1997) 3,000 Raw Ideas Equals 1 Commercial Success!, Research Technology

Management 16-27.

In the Pharmaceutical industry: 1 in 5,000 compounds makes it to shelf

1 in 15,000 breaks even

The Innovation Funnel

3,000 Raw

ideas

(unwritten)

300

Submitted

Ideas

125 Small

Projects

4 Major

Developments 2 Launches

1 Successfull

New Product

INNOVATION PROCESS

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY (2:40-5:45)

INNOVATION PROCESS

What do we know about the process of innovation?

How does it happen?

How to manage it?

Rather than trying to be another great man, try instead to make a difference

quickly and effectively. The way to do so is to fundamentally accept that

innovation is about moving existing ideas from where they are known to where

they are not, often in new combinations.

that is the way to become capable of “a minor invention every ten days and

a big thing every six months or so” (Thomas Edison at Menlo Park Laboratory in

1876)

INNOVATION PROCESS

In-House

Creation

within a

unit

Cross-

Pollination

Collaboration

across units

External

Collaboration

with parties

outside the

firm

Selection

Screening

and initial

funding

Development

Movement from

idea to first

result

Spread

Dissemination

across the

organization

Key

Questions

Do people

in our unit

create

good ideas

on their

own?

Do we create

good ideas by

working

across the

company?

Do we source

enough good

ideas from

outside the

firm?

Are we good

at screening

and funding

new ideas?

Are we good at

turning ideas

into viable

products,

businesses,

and best

practices?

Are we good at

diffusing

developed ideas

across the

company?

Key

Performance

Indicators

Number of

high-quality

ideas

generated

within a

unit.

Number of

high-quality

ideas

generated

across units.

Number of

high-quality

ideas

generated

from outside

the firm.

Percentage

of all ideas

generated

that end up

being

selected

and funded.

Percentage of

funded ideas

that lead to

revenues,

number of

months to first

sale.

Percentage of

penetration in

desired markets,

channels,

customer groups,

number of

months to full

diffusion.

Source: Morten Hansen and Julian Birkinshaw

DAY _2 : 3hrs

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies


ORGANIZING FOR INNOVATION

5. Are there particular types of innovation activities for which

large firms are likely to outperform small firms? Are there types

for which small firms are likely to outperform large firms?

Google Case Study

VALUE INNOVATION

Business Type: Circus Entertainment

Customer Type: Families with Children

High

Big League

Small League

Low

Source: Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgonee


Excuses:

Our people are bright but not challenged to innovate

Our organizations are not designed for innovation

Companies take a long time to innovate

Organizations have to respond to multiple pressures –

innovation becomes one of them

DOES SIZE MATTER?

1. Bigger is better (Schumpeter 1940s)

2. Small are more flexible and entrepreneurial: more careful and efficient result in

a larger number of patents per dollar

3. Industries with large development scale (aircraft, pharma) use large firms.

Advantages Disadvantages

Easier to obtain financing for R&D Difficult overtime to effectively monitor and

motivate employees

Better developed complementary

activities (marketing, financial planning)

Less dynamic and responsive to change due to

many layers of authority that create bureaucratic

inertia.

Greater global reach for information and

resources

Communication and coordination more difficult and

decision-making delays

Learning curve advantages due to

repetition

Strategic commitments to customers and suppliers

(Icarus Paradox: Xerox, Canon 1980s)

Able to take on large risky innovation

projects

Large fixed-asset bases

STRUCTURAL DIMENSIONS OF THE FIRM

Formalization Standardization Centralization

Use of rules, procedures,

and written documentation

to structure behaviours

The degree to which

activities are performed in

a uniform manner

The degree to which

decision-making authority

is kept at top levels of

management (geography

and power location)

Can substitute for some

degree of managerial

oversight

Operations run smoothly

and yield predictable

outcomes (quality)

Greater division of labour

among R&D specialists.

High degree makes a firm

rigid stifling employees

creativity

Excessive minimization of

variation can stifle

innovation

Generally industry-specific:

decentralised for research

intensive firms.

++ mechanistic

- - organic

CENTRALIZATION

Centralized and Decentralized R&D Activities

Headquarters

R&D

(a)

Centralized R&D Decentralized R&D

Headquarters

(b)

R&D

R&D

R&D

R&D

R&D

AMBIDEXTERITY

• Make large firms feel small. Break into smaller subunits and

General Electrics, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, General Motors

• Encourage an entrepreneurial culture within these subunits

• Disaggregation into smaller, specialized autonomous divisions

• Especially those characterized by high-speed technological change

• New terminology: virtual organization, network organization, modular

organization.

The Ambidextrous Organization

• Complex organizational form: multiple internally inconsistent architectures that

can collectively achieve both short term efficiency and long term innovation

• High formalization and standardization in some divisions but not in R&D (the

Macintosh team at Apple).

• Some divisions need a more organic structure to encourage creativity while

others do not (USA Today).

• Frequent reorganization of personnel (Motorola, Texas Instruments).

MODULAR PRODUCTS

• Standardize a number of common components and

• Using flexible manufacturing technologies that can quickly shift from

one assembly configuration to another

• Produce a wide range of product models just by changing which

components are combined (IKEA, Tata Motors)

• Cost effective

• More valuable when customers have heterogeneous demands

• Highly modular products require modular production systems

reduce amount of coordination required.

INNOVATION ACROSS BORDERS

• International R&D activities (R&D divisions abroad in the late 1990s): Netherlands and Switzerland > 50% ; 30% of Western Europe ; 5% USA

• Customization of products and services to local markets makes them

particularly difficult to transfer

• The benefit is more on leveraging technological innovation rather than

sharing innovations.

• 4 main strategies

Center for global Local for local Locally leveraged Globally linked

All innovation activities are

conducted at a central

hub and innovations are

then diffused throughout

the company.

Each subsidiary of

the firm conducts

its own R&D

activities, tailored

for the needs of the

local market.

Each subsidiary conducts

its own R&D, but the firm

attempts to leverage

resulting innovations

throughout the company

(champion or international

brand custodian)

Innovation activities are

decentralized, but also centrally

coordinated for the global

needs of the corporation.

May not closely fit the

needs of foreign markets.

Lack of scale.

Redundancy in

activities.

Is effective if the different

markets served have similar

needs.

Expensive in time and money

and requires intensive

coordination.

MULTINATIONALS

Overall the objective of multinationals is to make centralized innovation activities

more effective while making decentralized innovation activities more efficient.

1. Encourage reciprocal interdependence among the divisions of the firm.

2. Utilize integration mechanisms across the divisions (e.g. Rotating personnel

across divisions)

3. Balance the organization’s identity between its national brands and its global

image.

Ericsson: sending teams of 50-100 engineers to a different subsidiary a year or

two.


We can learn from global leaders in organizing for innovation

The innovation process can be managed (tools: scenario analysis,

value innovation, etc.)

…but ultimately it comes down to the PEOPLE we have and the

BEHAVIOURS we encourage.

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies


MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS

6. What are the benefits and costs of involving customers and

suppliers in the development process?

Frog Design Case Study

• The ability to develop new products quickly, efficiently and effectively

is today the most important factor driving firm success.

Computer hardware and software, telecommunications, automobiles, and

consumer electronics.

• Firms depend on products introduced within the past 5 years for more

than 50% of their sales.

• Failure rate for new products remains extremely high.

> 95% of all new product development projects fail to return in an

economic return


PROCESS

How do we make the new

product development process

more effective and more

efficient?

• Maximizing fit with customer requirements.

Have a clear sense of which features customers value the most

Overestimate the customer’s willingness to pay for some features

Resolving heterogeneity in customer demands

Philips in the video game industry: 1989 CD-i (before Sega Saturn and Sony

PlayStation): priced too high, complex.

• Minimizing cycle time

Early entry advantages: Build brand loyalty, build customer switching costs,

more time for complementary goods.

Many development costs are directly related to time

Maximize the product life cycle (electronics: 12 mo)

More quickly revise and upgrade its offering

Avoid: sloppy product testing, overburdening development teams

• Controlling development costs

Good PM to avoid costs having ballooned too much efficient development

efforts.

THE KEY OBJECTIVES

DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

• Communication challenge

• No early warning system: risk to iterate

back and fourth time lengthening

Commercial

production

Process

design

Sequential Process

(a)

Cycle

Time

Opportunity

identification

Concept

development

Product

design

Partly Parallel Development Process

(b)

Cycle

Time

Opportunity

identification

Concept

development

Product

design

Process

design

Commercial

production

R&D

Manufacturing

Engineers

• Much closer coordination

• Not ideal for markets with rapid changes and

uncertainty risks of high costs and

reluctance to change by managers

Adopting parallel development processes

Using project champions: senior executives with the power and authority

to fight for a project.

Anti-champions (devil’s advocate)

Involving customers in the development process

Best to identify the maximum performance capabilities and minimum service

requirements (beta testing)

Use lead users instead of mass sample: same the same needs of the

marketplace well before.

Involving suppliers in the development process

For alternative inputs with same functionalities but at lower costs

METHODS

PRODUCT INNOVATION - TRENDS

1. FUN – Colori vivaci, forme sinuose, superfici decorate ed imperfezioni ad hoc strizzano l'occhio ad oggetti

e realtà di altri contesti.

2. TOUCH – Le persone raramente sono intimidite dagli oggetti che desiderano toccare. L'interazione fisica

rivela la natura e le qualità di un prodotto.

3. CUSTOM – La personalizzazione di un prodotto, dal dettaglio grafico fino alle varianti tridimensionali, lo

rende un oggetto personale e speciale.

4. HEALTH – La cura della propria salute è l'interesse più importante per ognuno di noi, sempre più

desiderosi di soluzioni in-home efficaci e di facile utilizzo.

5. FEMININE – I gadgets non sono più cose da maschi! Sempre più aziende propongono versioni più

raffinate dei propri prodotti, per le donne che vogliono essere “geek chic”.

6. SIMPLEXITY – Un prodotto ricco di funzioni deve essere anche accessibile, ergonomico e di facile utilizzo

per essere accettato dall'utente. “One click or no click!”

7. GREEN – I designers hanno la missione di creare oggetti innovativi e sostenibili, migliorando la nostra

qualità di vita, senza danneggiare il pianeta nè privare le generazioni future delle nostre medesime

opportunità.

8. MEANING – Scegliamo un oggetto non in base a quello che fa, bensì in funzione del suo significato, di ciò

che ci comunica e del modo in cui ci permette di relazionarci con gli altri.

9. SOCIAL – Ogni nuovo prodotto genera una comunità reale e virtuale, che si riconosce in un insieme di

valori condivisi, e collabora per la soddisfazione e la serenità di tutti i suoi partecipanti.

10. MASS GEEK – La conoscenza sempre più approfondita e dettagliata di qualsiasi prodotto ci rende utenti

esigenti, bisognosi di performance elevate ed esperienze d'uso ineguagliabili.

Creating go/kill decisions points with stage gate processes

Cooper’s stage-gate process

At each stage use a cross-functional team

Preceding each stage is a go/kill gate

Each gate has 3 components

1. Deliverables: results of previous, now inputs

2. Criteria: metrics for the go/kill

3. Outputs: decision, action plan for next gate

TOOLS

STAGE-GATE PROCESS

Source: From “Doing It Right: Winning with New Products”. By R. G. Cooper, Ivey Business

Journal, July/August 2000, Vol.64, No.6

GATE 1 Idea Screen

Does the idea

merit any work?

GATE 2 Second Screen

Does the idea justify

extensive

investigation?

GATE 3 Decisions to

Develop Is the

business case

sound?

GATE 4 Decision to Test

Should the project be

moved to external

testing?

GATE 5 Decision to Launch

Is the product ready

for commercial

launch?

IDEA SCOPING BUILING

BUSINESS CASE

DEVELOPMENT TESTING &

VALIDATION

LAUNCH POST-

LAUNCH

REVIEW

STAGE 1 • Preliminary

market

assessment

• Preliminary

technical

assessment

• Preliminary

financial and

business

assessment

• Action plan

for Stage 2

STAGE 2 • User needs and

wants study

• Competitive

analysis

• Value proposition

defined

• Technical

feasibility

assessment

• Operations

assessment

• Product definition

• Financial analysis

STAGE 3 • Technical

development work

• Rapid prototypes

• Initial customer

feedback

• Prototype

development

• In-house product

testing

• Operations

process

development

• Full launch and

operations plans

STAGE 4 • Extended in-house

testing

• Customer field trials

• Acquisition of

production

equipment

• Production trials

• Test market/trial

sell

• Finalized launch

and operations

plans

• Post launch and life

cycle plans

STAGE 5 • Market launch

and rollout

• Full production

• Selling begun

• Results

monitoring

• Post launch and

life cycle plans

under way.

How did we

do vs.

projections?

What did we

learn?

DEVELOPMENT TIME AND COSTS BY STAGE

There is an escalation, only as uncertainty decreases

Source: From Frederick D. Buggie, “Set the Fuzzy Front End in Concrete”, Research

Technology Management, Vol. 45, No. 4, July/August 2002.

Stage Time Cost

0. “Here’s an idea!”

1. Formulate-describe and sketch 1 week $100

2. Conduct preliminary investigations 2 weeks $1,000

3. Design and define specifications 1 month $10,000

4a. Develop prototype and test

4b. Market research

4c. Strategic fit evaluation and NPV

risk analysis

2 months $100,000

5a. Scale up, build pilot plant

5b. Market test 8 months $1 million

6a. Build plant

6b. Promote, launch, market 16 months $10 million

$11,111,100

Cost

28 Months Time

EXTENDED SYSTEM

Exxon Research and Engineering’s Stage-Gate System

• Adaptation to meet specific needs of the firm

• Inclusion of directed basic research to develop a research plan and identify

possible business opportunities

Stage

A

Stage

B

Stage

5 Stage

4

Stage

3

Stage

2

Stage

1

Gate A Gate B

Gate4 Gate 3 Gate 2 Gate 1

Opportunity

Identification

Enabling Science &

Idea Growing

Lead

Definition

Pre-

development

Assestment

Development Validation Commercialization

Defining design targets with Quality Function Deployment

QFD: to improve communication and coordination (Japan)

Takes managers through a structured problem-solving process

House of Quality: matrix to map customer requirements against product attributes.

1. Identify customer requirements

2. Assign weights from a customer’s perspective (out of 100)

3. Identify engineering attributes of performance

4. Enter correlations between attributes (+ ; - )

5. Fill the matrix with values that represent the strength of relationship (low number is

weak, high strong)

6. Multiply customer importance rating of each feature by its relationship to an

engineering attribute. Sum per each column what is the most important

engineering attribute?

7. Evaluate the competition (1-7): low is not addressed, high is satisfied.

8. Using these values and the importance ratings, target values for each design

requirements are established.

9. Create a product design based on the design targets of step 8.

TOOLS

THE HOUSE OF QUALITY

Quality Function Deployment House of Quality for a Car Door

A heavy door reduces the

stiffness of the hinges

-

Design for Manufacturing (DFM)

Facilitate integration between engineering and manufacturing

Articulate a series of design rules to ease manufacturing

Ease to manufacture few assembly line steps higher productivity

lower unit costs

Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)

A type of risk analysis

Identify potential failures in a system, classify them, prevention plans

Landing gear doe not descend

Reservation not found

Prioritize development efforts to target potential failure modes

Apollo Space Program ; Ford Pinto (gas tank position, fire-related deaths,

lawsuits)

TOOLS

Computer Aided Design (CAD) / Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)

systems

Test product designs

Low price, high power graphics

3D easily adjustable models

Reduce cycle time

Communication with non-engineers

TOOLS

Using metrics to assess performance of the new product development

process

They vary substantially across firms

Benchmarking

Multiple measures

Avg. Cycle time, how many projects met deadlines, stayed in budget,

were completed

At firm’s level: firm’s return on innovation, % of products that

achieve sales goals

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT TOOLS

DAY _3 : 3hrs

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies



TEAMS

7. What are the trade-offs in choosing a team’s size and level of

diversity?

Skullcandy Case Study

BUILDING TEAMS

- New product development requires activities that are the responsibility of

various departments.

- Formation and management varies: size, composition, structure, leadership,

administration.

SIZE

- A few > 100s

- Adv. more knowledge

- Disadv. more admin costs, communication problems, social loafing

BUILDING TEAMS

COMPOSITION

- cross-functional teams:

facilitate communication faster, less mistakes, cost effective

wide variety of information sources more solutions

- MKT-R&D -> customer fit

- R&D-MFG -> quality and price

- Different time, cultural diversity, gender, age

- Homophily: tendency to like similar people communication barriers

Long-term, intensive interaction, personalities.

STRUCTURE

- Functional, lightweight, heavyweight, autonomous

CEO

R&D MFG MKT

CEO

R&D MFG MKT

TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

CEO

R&D MFG MKT

CEO

R&D MFG MKT

a) Functional Team

Structure

b) Lightweight Team

Structure

c) Heavyweight Team

Structure

d) Autonomous Team

Structure

No cross-functional

integration; employees

remain within functional

departments.

Employees remain within

functional departments but

project manager provides

cross-functional integration.

Project manager provides

cross-functional

integration; team

members are collocated

but still report to

functional managers also.

Project manager provides

cross-functional

integration; team

members are collocated

and report only to project

manager.

Project

Manager

Project

Manager

Project

Manager

TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT TEAMS

Summary of Characteristics of Team Types Characteristics Functional

Team

Lightweight

Team

Heavyweight

Team

Autonomous

Team

Project manager None Junior or middle Senior manager Senior manager

Power of project manager N/A Low High Very high

Time spent on team

activities

Up to 10% Up to 25%

100% 100%

Location of team members Functions Functions Collocated with

project manager

Collocated with

project manager

Length of commitment to

team

Temporary Temporary Long-term but

ultimately temporary

Permanent

Evaluation of team

members

Functional

heads

Functional

heads

Project manager and

functional heads

Project manager

Potential for conflict

between team and functions

Low Low Moderate High

Degree of cross-functional

integration

Low Moderate High High

Degree of fit with existing

organizational practices

High High Moderate Moderate-low

Appropriate for: Some derivative

projects

Derivative

projects

Platform projects /

breakthrough projects

Platform projects /

breakthrough projects

LEADERSHIP

BUILDING TEAMS

LEADERSHIP

- Communication between team and senior management

- Act as concept champion, conflict resolution, multi-language

ADMINISTRATION

- Project Charter: project mission, goals, vision statement, team info “Dell laptops will be the market standard for performance and value”

- Contract Book: negotiated between core team members and senior

management

Plan: resources, time, outcomes

Benchmarks and deadlines

Sense of ownership for the team sign

MANAGING VIRTUAL TEAMS

- Needed skills defines the appropriate pool of people.

- Many challenges: rich face-to-face communication, informal interaction

- Select the right people

Comfortable with those technologies

Strong interpersonal skills

Work independently

Strong work ethic

Establish ground rules:

quickly respond to messages

have regular group meetings

have mandatory unstructured “chat” time develop trust, exchange tacit

knowledge, resolving conflict

TOWARDS VIRTUAL TEAMS

Source: From O. Gassman and M. von Zedtwitz, 2003. “Trends and Determinants of

Managing Virtual R&D Teams”, R&D Management Vol.33, No.3, pp.243-262

Decentralized Self-

Coordinated

System Integrator as

Coordinator

Core Team as System

Architect

Centralized Venture Team

All R&D conducted by

decentralized divisions

that coordinate loosely

with each other.

Most R&D activity conducted

by decentralized divisions,

but each coordinates with

central integrator.

Core team takes lead role

in R&D activities while

also coordinating the R&D

activities of the

decentralized divisions.

R&D resources

transferred to centralized

venture team, which then

conducts all R&D

activities.

Decentralization Centralization

PROPER HUMAN RESOURCES

Design-Driven Innovation

Innovate = technology + application

Business-Driven Innovation

Innovate = technology + business models

Youth

Maturity

CREATIVITY MYTH

• A common myth is that only certain people are creative (E. Glasman).

• Creativity is not inherited.

• We are born innovative – we all have a curious child within us

• Reviving many of the child-like ways of looking at the world that we have

lost as adults.

• Adults use many devices to think routinely and create inhibitors to

creative thinking.

• We need to practice innovative habits on a daily basis. Innovation is a

skill that must be cultivated.

BLOCKS TO CREATIVITY

Environmental blocks

1. Physical surroundings

2. Lack of cooperation or trust in a group

3. An autocratic leader

4. Lack of physical, economic, or organizational help

Cultural blocks

1. Fear of inability, making a bad choice, or a mistake; fear of

failing, or of risking too much.

2. No appetite for chaos: inability to tolerate ambiguity.

3. Judging rather than generating ideas

4. Inability to incubate, to "sleep on it.“

5. Lack of motivation, lack of enthusiasm.

6. Excessive zeal

7. Awareness and control of reality and fantasy

CATALYSTS FOR CREATIVITY

• Open questions

• Non-conventional influences

• Emotional/spiritual awareness

• Proper equipment and facilities

• An open classroom where all can feel they belong

• Having the freedom/support to take risks and learn from one another

• Encouragement to persevere

• Confidence that peers will give everyone space

• Brainstorming exercises

• …..

Promote an environment that prompts innovation

BRAINSTORMING

• Criticism is ruled out; all ideas are accepted and recorded.

• Free-wheeling is welcomed -- the wilder the idea the better.

• Quantity of ideas is emphasized as much as quality.

• Involve no fewer than five and no more than seven people to guarantee "critical mass" and

to allow everyone to participate.

• Always hold meetings in a neutral place, such as a conference room, or off-site location.

• Use a round table whenever possible -- all people should have positions of equal

prominence.

• Use visuals -- flip charts, blackboards, and places to hang or mount exhibits -- for easy

reference later.

• Tape record sessions, if desired.

• A designated leader, preferably not the person with the primary responsibility for the

problem, should lead the discussion, pose questions, and ask for reactions.

• A facilitator, other than the leader, should handle mechanics, such as note taking and

writing on the flip chart.

• Always notify people in advance so they can think about the issue prior to the meeting and

schedule the meeting when people are fresh and undistracted.

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies

CONCLUSIONS

1. LEADERSHIP in innovation: Three essential traits for innovation

leadership are positive encouragement, a tolerance for failure, and

patience. “Innovation is central to strategy” (Patrick Cescau Group

CEO, Unilever)

2. Celebrate an innovation CULTURE: A mindset open to innovation

builds upon first principles, doesn’t rely on assumptions and accepts

failure. Significant innovation requires significant funding – it must be

conststent and sufficient even in economic downturns. “We never

accept the status quo, we never accept conventional thinking” (Art

Levinson CEO, Genentech)

3. Engage more innovation PARTNERS: Innovative companies pursue

multiple approaches to access external innovative talent and

expertise: joint ventures, technology clusters, venture funds, open

innovation models. “There is so much knowledge and skills in the

company – but we don’t have enough in terms of skills and

capabilities” (Olli-Pekka Kallasvou CEO, Nokia)

CONCLUSIONS

4. Encourage DIVERSITY & POSITIVE FRICTION: Cultural diversity

stimulates innovation because individuals from different

backgrounds/experiences working together create more innovative

solutions. “One of our core values is cultural diversity” (Franz

Fehrenbach CEO, Bosch)

5. Use COSTUMERS judiciously: Excessive attention to customers’

short-term requests inhibits the far-horizon speculation and

imagination. “Two things are key for innovation: one is listen to the

customers, and the second is not listen to the customers” (Henning

Kagermann CE, SAP)

6. Encourage YOUTH to challenge: Supporting and encouraging youth

can advance innovation because is typically more open to new ideas.

“The biggest challenge is creating a sense of urgency for innovation

where things are going well” (Narayana Murthy Chairman Infosys)

CONCLUSIONS

• The pace of innovation is ACCELERATING globally

• We need innovation-centric POLICIES and FRAMEWORKS

• Keep faith in the ability of PEOPLE to innovate; encourage them to

PRACTICE INNOVATIVE HABITS

• DESIGN innovation into the core of your organization

• SMALL ACTIONS can go a long way – each one of us can MAKE

A DIFFERENCE and create a TIPPING POINT.

• The PHYSICAL workspace represents the “body language” of an

organization.

o Terrific spaces help teams stay fresh and foster an

environment that sparks new ideas. They can also suck the

life out of an organization!

o It is the stage for your team’s performance.

• You need to innovate to SURVIVE, grow and prosper

• Treat life as an EXPERIMENT

CONCLUSIONS

The supreme achievement is to blur the line between work and play

(Arnold J. Toynbee)

Good at

Born

To Do

Pay you

to do

CONCLUSIONS

• Breath instead of depth

breadth

depth

1

Constant prototyping instead of optimization

CONCLUSIONS

Siede la terra dove nata fui

su la marina dove ‘l Po discende

per aver pace co’ seguaci sui.

amor, ch’al cor gentil ratto s’apprende,

prese costui de la bella persona

che mi fu tolta, e ‘l modo ancor m’offende.

Amor, ch’a nullo amato amar perdona,

mi prese del costui piacer si forte,

che, come vedi, ancor non m’abbandona.

Paolo e Francesca

Continuo a leggere

la Commedia

Forse leggerò anche Francesca da

Rimini di Riccardo Zandonai

Paolo e Francesca

Francesca da Rimini

di Riccardo Zandonai

Gabriele D’Annunzio

Ronchi dei legionari

Rimini

Il Grand

Hotel

Fellini

Oscar

Andrew

Lloyd Webber

Evita

Che

Guevara

DEPTH FIRST

BREADTH FIRST

CONCLUSIONS

Depth Breadth

Approfondire mi fa apprezzare davvero

quel che merita di essere approfondito

Resto superficiale e rischio abbagli

Approfondendo imparo a capire a fondo Ma imparo a istituire collegamenti

The devil is in the details É più probabile che mi imbatta in una cosa

che ritengo degna di essere approfondita...

Approfondendo qualcosa, imparo a

rifuggire tutte le semplificazioni

...e allora colgo il meglio dei due mondi

<< Un essere umano deve essere in gradi di cambiare un pannolino,

pianificare un’invasione, macellare un maiale, guidare una nave, progettare un

edificio, scrivere un sonetto, tenere la contabilità, costruire un muro, aggiustare

un osso rotto, confortare i moribondi, prendere ordini, dare ordini, collaborare,

agire da solo, risolvere equazioni, analizzare un problema nuovo, raccogliere il

letame, programmare un computer, cucinare un pasto saporito, battersi con

efficienza, morire valorosamente. La specializzazione va bene per gli insetti. >>

(R.A. Heinlein, Lazarus Long l’immortale, 1973)

CONCLUSIONS

Good enough!

Mitigare la mania di ottimizzazione

Guadagno /

miglioramento

Sforzo / costo

6 Sigma

1 Sigma 690mila difetti per milione Efficienza

31%


9%


93%


99.4%

5 Sigma 230 difetti per milione Efficienza

99.97%

6 Sigma 3 difetti per milione Efficienza

99.99%

SUMMARY OF CONCEPTS








7. Conclusions


Implementing

Innovation

Strategies

IS INNOVATION ALWAYS GOOD?

8. What are the advantages and disadvantages of technological

innovation?

SOCIAL INNOVATION

Reality Check: Innovation often also results in negative externalities such as

pollution, depletion of natural resources, moral dilemmas, antibiotic-

resistant strains of bacteria, etc.

Reasons: knowledge created through technological innovation is sometimes

applied to problems hastily, without full consideration of the consequences

and alternatives.

Social Innovation: “a process and a strategy to foster human development

through solidarity, cooperation, and cultural diversity”

The term has overlapping meanings. It can be used to refer to social

processes of innovation, such as open source methods and techniques.

Alternatively it refers to innovations which have a social purpose.

OPEN INNOVATION

Certainly one of the new trends of innovation is that is now more OPEN

and GLOBAL that before.

“Open innovation is a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should

use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external

paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology”

Innovate through collaboration

OI advocates knowledge-sharing not only internally but also with actors

beyond a firm’s boundaries.

“Per ciascuno dei nostri 7,500 ricercatori in P&G ci sono almeno 200 scienziati e

ingenieri da qualche altra parte del mondo che sono almeno altrettando bravi –

forse un totale di un milione e mezzo di persone il cui talento potremmo usare”

L.Huston VP per l’innovazione e la conoscenza, P&G

SOCIAL PURPOSE

1. Pur registrando una riduzione dei rifiuti urbani smaltiti in discarica, l’Italia si colloca ancora significativamente al di sopra della media europea, con 286,1 kg di rifiuti per abitante. Si tratta del 52,7 per cento del totale dei rifiuti urbani raccolti su tutto il territorio nazionale

2. I cittadini stranieri iscritti nelle anagrafi dei comuni italiani all’inizio del 2010 sono oltre 4,2 milioni, il 7,0 per cento del totale dei residenti. Rispetto al 2001 sono più che triplicati; nel 2009 sono cresciuti dell’8,8 per cento, anche se, rispetto agli ultimi anni, il ritmo di crescita è meno sostenuto. Il rapporto tra popolazione giovane e anziana e popolazione in età attiva supera il 52 per cento (2009). L’Italia è ai primi posti nella graduatoria europea.

3. Praticano sport poco più di 19 milioni di residenti di tre anni e più (circa un italiano su tre): il 22,8 per cento in modo continuativo, il 10,2 saltuariamente. Pur non praticando sport, 16,5 milioni di persone svolgono un'attività fisica, mentre i sedentari superano i 22 milioni (2009)

4. I viaggi con pernottamento effettuati dai residenti per motivi di vacanza e di lavoro, sia in Italia sia all’estero, sono pari a circa 115 milioni, per un totale di oltre 680 milioni di notti (2009). Le durate medie dei soggiorni in Italia sono pari a 6,0 e a 2,8 notti, rispettivamente per vacanza e per lavoro.

Produttori di rifiuti

Anziani e stranieri

Attenti alla salute

ma pigri

Sempre in

viaggio

SOCIAL PURPOSE

Produttori di rifiuti

SOCIAL PURPOSE

Anziani e stranieri

in crescita Il prossimo obiettivo di Ibm è quello di semplificare la

telefonia mobile. L'azienda ha infatti annunciato di aver

avviato un programma di ricerca biennale che mira a

sviluppare nuovi modelli di cellulare di più facile utilizzo. Il

progetto vedrà la collaborazione del National Institute of

Design of India e della Tokyo University.

"Dato l'invecchiamento della popolazione europea e nord

americana, la necessità di strumenti ad hoc diventerà

incalzante", ha commentato Ben Wood, direttore della

società di consulenza britannica Css Insight.

Ma quali sono le caratteristiche che un cellulare deve

supportare per soddisfare le esigenze dei non più giovani?

Prima di tutto uno schermo grande e ben leggibile in ogni

condizione di luminosità. In secondo luogo, tasti grandi e di

facile utilizzo. Terzo, funzioni semplificate: in un mercato

ormai dominato dagli smartphone dotati di applicazioni,

giochi e funzionalità sempre più complesse, gli anziani

chiedono che il cellulare ritorni ad essere quello che era in

origine, uno strumento per telefonare.

SOCIAL PURPOSE

Attenti alla salute

ma pigri

SOCIAL PURPOSE

Sempre in viaggio

ASSIGNMENT: INDIVIDUAL CASE STUDIES

1. The power of yellow

2. Sesame Workshop: Empowering children through media

3. The Northern Rangelands Trust: A new model for development

4. Simple solutions that save lives

5. Why social innovators need design thinking

6. Social Innovation: A matter of scale

7. Scuba rice: Building a better food from past innovations

8. New ways to fund social innovation

9. Mobile money: A game changer for financial inclusion

10. Innovating for a better city

11. Big data, small wars, local insights: Designing for development with conflict-affected communities

12. Harnessing technology for transformation

13. Tapping corporate expertise to improve lives

14. Telling the world’s stories to promote change

15. Incubating innovation in social enterprises

THE END

entrepreneurship & innovation · pdf file• technopreneurship: ... innovation is not...

Documents