TARJA MERISTÖ, JUKKA LAITINEN, SAMI LEPPIMÄKI, HANNA TUOHIMAA
Corporate Foresight Group CoFi / Åbo Akademi University Joukahaisenkatu 3-5 A, FI-20520 Turku, Finland
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT - The evaluation of the INNORISK-project’s results stressed the importance of the opportunity identification and other activities of the innovation process’ front end. The front end is the phase where initial ideas are created and where the innovations are thus born. However, the significance of the other end i.e. the commercialization phase was also recognized. The open innovation paradigm highlights the importance of the innovations born outside the company. This is in line with the evaluation’s notion that the customers are the most important source of innovations.
Keywords: project evaluation, innovation process, innovation sources
In order to evaluate and verify our results of the INNORISK project we sent a web based survey to the contact persons of companies and research groups who have been involved in Tekes’s Liito programme. 25 persons replied and they were representing both business and academia. According to the study, commercialization was considered as the most challenging phase of the innovation process (Figure 4.1). The study also confirmed that early phases have an important role in the innovation process: futures research & foresight was the second challenging phase. The third place was shared with concept design and strategic focus.
Figure 4.1. The most challenging phases of the innovation process (max 3 phases per each respondent).
20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %
1. Challenge management 6 24,00 %
2. Future research and foresight 13 52,00 %
3. Concept design 11 44,00 %
4. R&D 3 12,00 %
5. Market analysis 6 24,00 %
6. Commercialization 15 60,00 %
31 Figure 4.2. The importance of the early phases of the innovation process.
The survey showed that respondents have used several different methods for innovation activities (Figure 4.3). The most frequently used method was brain-storming sessions, which was used for several different purposes but most often for idea generation and enrichment. The wide range of different used methods confirmed our perception that there is need for a tool box so that you can choose appropriate tools case-specifically.
Figure 4.3. Tools and methods used for foresight and innovation activities.
The respondents also estimated the importance of the early phases of the innovation process (Figure 4.2). All the phases were considered important or very important, opportunity identification being the most important phase.
Have you used the following tools and methods?
Yes (Value: 1) No (Value: 0)
Brain-storming sessions (avg: 0,96) 100 %
Multidisciplinary environmental scanning, e.g. PESTE (avg: 0,52) 100 %
Expert opinion surveys, e.g. Delfoi (avg: 0,45) 100 %
Patent analysis (avg: 0,27) 100 %
Technology roadmaps (avg: 0,77) 100 %
Scenario analysis (avg: 0,71) 100 %
Market analysis (avg: 0,78) 100 %
Consumer behavior analysis (avg: 0,65) 100 %
Risk analysis (avg: 0,70) 100 %
65 % 35 %
= Yes, have used = No, have not used
Not impor- tant at all (Value: 0)
Not so important (Value: 1)
Important (Value: 2)
Very important (Value: 3)
Opportunity identification (avg: 2,79) 100 %
Opportunity analysis (avg: 2,24) 100 %
Idea generation and enrichment (avg: 2,48) 100 %
Idea selection (avg: 1,92) 100 %
Concept design (avg: 2,29) 100 %
0 % 7 % 51 % 41 %
= Not important at all = Not so important = Important = Very important
The new ideas are often born in more or less casual every day interaction between coworkers. This way, the main source of innovation may also in the future be company’s own personnel. However, the importance of outside the company innovation sources is growing. This development is accelerated by the new increasingly networked business models adapted by the companies. The innovations are born in the networks formed by companies, universities, research institutions and other organizations. The survey conducted in the project supported this notion, as the results showed that company’s customers and suppliers are considered to be the two most important sources of innovation (Fig. 4.4). The survey results also validated the notion, that science has an important role as a source of innovation.
This is true especially in the very technologically intensive industries. However, the weight that the survey respondents gave to new entrants was somewhat of a surprise. Still, it is evident that the new entrants to some well established markets create disruption, which may eventually lead to radical innovations whether in business models, products or in both. The survey results showed that analogy models from other industries are not considered to me among the most important sources of innovations. Although, in the case of some mature low-growth industry it could be worth while to examine analogies from other more dynamic industries. Legislation’s role as a source of innovation was considered to be relatively unimportant. However, in some heavily regulated markets or industries legislation and regulation surely have a very important role (Bommer M. and Jalajas D.S. 2004).
Figure 4.4. Importance of the innovation sources outside the company.
The sources of innovations are more often outside the company. The adaption of the open innovation paradigm is accelerating this development. The companies are expanding their innovation processes into global networks. Thereby, the innovation creation is no longer exclusive responsibility of the management or product development personnel.
As the focus of finding new ideas is shifting towards the accurate foresight of the customer preferences and the end- user needs, especially the marketing personnel have an important role in mediating the changes in customer needs to the company’s innovation process. The company can utilize its networks when searching meaningful interpretation
Not impor- tant at all (Value: 0)
Not so important (Value: 1)
Important (Value: 2)
Very important (Value: 3)
Customers (avg: 2,76) 100 %
Suppliers (avg: 2,24) 100 %
Substitutes (avg: 1,63) 100 %
Competitors (avg: 1,88) 100 %
New entrants (avg: 2,12) 100 %
Analogies (avg: 1,63) 100 %
Science (avg: 1,96) 100 %
Legislation (avg: 1,16) 100 %
(avg: 2,33) 100 %
5 % 21 % 50 % 24 %
= Not important at all = Not so important = Important = Very important
33
INNORISK research reports
Meristö, T., Paasi, J., Leppimäki, S,. Valkokari, P., Laitinen, J., Maijala, P., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T., Molarius, R., (2006) INNORISK-väliraportti: Tulevaisuuden epävarmuuden hallinta liiketoimintavetoisessa innovaatioprosessissa. (Managing the Uncertainty of the Future in the Business Driven Innovation Process, in Finnish with English Summary).
Turku: Corporate Foresight Group CoFi /Åbo Akademi University.
Meristö, T., Paasi, J., Leppimäki, S., Valkokari, P., Laitinen, J., Maijala, P., Tuohimaa, H., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T., Molarius, R. (2008) INNORISK-väliraportti: Innovaatiot liiketoiminnan uudistajana. (Innovations as Reformers of Business, in Finnish with English Summary) Turku: Corporate Foresight Group CoFi /Åbo Akademi University.
Meristö, T., Molarius, R., Leppimäki, S., Laitinen, J., Tuohimaa, H., (2007) LAADUKAS SWOT: Työkalu pk-yrityksen innovaatiovetoisen tulevaisuuden menestyksen turvaamiseksi.
(Excellent SWOT: The Tool for Innovation Driven SMEs to Ensure Success in the Future, in Finnish with English Summary) Turku: Corporate Foresight Group CoFi /Åbo Akademi University.
A more detailed list of working papers and seminar articles related to the INNORISK project can be found in www.vtt.fi/innorisk/ and www.it.abo.fi/cofi/.
Appendix
Steering group members 2006-2009 Barbro Back, Åbo Akademi
Saara Hassinen, Suomen Bioteollisuus Heikki Härmälä, Treston Oy
Ilpo Ihanamäki, Tekes
Antti Kaunonen, Metso Automation, currently Voith AG (member till 2007) Pertti Laine, Metsäteollisuus ry (member till 2008)
Pekka Lammassaari, Fastems Oy
Esa Lindqvist, Varsinais-Suomen TE-keskus
Keijo Parviainen, Kalmar Industries, (member till 2007) Hanna Pihkola, KCL (member 2008 –)
Jari Riihilahti, Metso Automation, currently Metso Minerals Jouko Suokas, VTT
Antro Säilä, Metsäteollisuus ry (member 2008 –) Jarmo Tuomisto, Kalmar Industries
References
Christensen, C. and Raynor, M. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution. Creating and Sustaining Succesful Growth. Harvard Business School Press.
Leifer, R, CM McDermott, GC O’Connor, LS Peters, M Rice, and RW Veryzer (2000). Radical Innovation: How Mature Companies Can Outsmart Upstarts. Boston: Harward Business School Press.
Meristö, T., Karjalainen, J., Ahvenainen, M. and Leppimäki, S. (2001). Values and Technology Scenarios in the Context of Strategic Planning, in publication Smart Machines and Systems: Recent Advances in Mechatronics in Finland. Teknillisen korkeakoulun koneensuunnittelun julkaisuja 1/2001.
Morone, JG (1993). Winning in High-Tech Markets. Boston: Harward Business School Press.
Utterback, J (1994). Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Boston: Harward Business School Press.
Bell, W. (1997). Foundations of Future Studies, Human Science for a New Era. Volume 1 & 2.Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, USA.
Kokkonen, V., Kuuva, M., Leppimäki, S., Lähteinen, V., Meristö, T., Piira, S. ja Sääskilahti, M. (2005). Visioiva tuotekonseptointi - Työkalu tutkimus- ja kehitystoiminnan ohjaamiseen Teknologiateollisuus ry:n julkaisuja 4/2005.
Laitinen, J., Leppimäki, S., Meristö, T., Tuohimaa, H. (2008). Future Driven Innovation Process Model: Case South America as a Future Business Environment. The 2008 ISPIM Conference - Open Innovation: Creating Products and Services through Collaboration - will be held in Tours (Loire Valley), France on 15-18 June 2008.
Leppimäki, S., Laitinen, J., Meristö, T., Tuohimaa, H. (2008) Visionary Concept: Combining Scenario Methodology with Concept Development. World Future Society Conference Book 2008: Seeing the Future Through New Eyes (edited by Cynthia G. Wagner).
Meristö, T., Paasi, J., Leppimäki, S,. Valkokari, P., Laitinen, J., Maijala, P., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T., Molarius, R., (2006) INNORISK- väliraportti: Tulevaisuuden epävarmuuden hallinta liiketoimintavetoisessa innovaatioprosessissa.
Meristö, T., Molarius, R., Leppimäki, S., Laitinen, J., Tuohimaa, H., (2007) INNORISK - LAADUKAS SWOT: Työkalu pk-yrityksen innovaatiovetoisen tulevaisuuden menestyksen turvaamiseksi.
Meristö, T., Paasi, J., Leppimäki, S., Valkokari, P., Laitinen, J., Maijala, P., Tuohimaa, H., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T., Molarius, R. (2008) INNORISK-väliraportti: Innovaatiot liiketoiminnan uudistajana.
Turoff, M. & Linstone, H. A. (2002) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. IS@NJIT.
Van der Heijden, K. (1996) Scenarios: the Art of Strategic Conversation. J. Wiley.
Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S.J. (2005) Lean, Rapid, and Profitable New Product Development. Ancaster: Product Development Institute, pp. 42-43.
Dorval, K.B. and Lauer, K.J. (2004). The Birth of Novelty: Ensuring New Ideas Get a Fighting Chance. In The PDMA Toolbook 2 for New Product Development. P Belliveau, A Griffin, S Somermeyer (eds.), pp. 269-293. New York: Wiley.
Hatch, M.J. (1997) Organisation Theory. Modern, Symbolic-Interpretive and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
35 Kettunen, J., Ilomäki, S.-K., and Kalliokoski, P. (2007) Making Sense of Innovation Management. Helsinki, Teknologiainfo Teknova.
229 p.
Koen, P.A., Ajamian, G.M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P. and Seibert R. (2002) Fuzzy Front End: Effective Methods, Tools, and Techniques. In The PDMA Toolbook 1 for New Product Development, Belliveau, P., Griffin, A.
and Somermeyer, S. (eds.), New York: Wiley, pp. 5-35.
Luoma, T. and Paasi, J. (2007) Commercialisation Success in Innovation Development, in Proc. of The XVIII ISPIM Annual Conference Innovation for Growth. Torkkeli, M., Conn, S. and Bitran, I. (eds).
Luoma, T., Paasi, J. and Nordlund, H. (2008) Managing Commercialisation Risks in Innovation Development: Linking Front End and Commercialisation, In Proc. of The XIX ISPIM Conference. Huizingh K.R.E., Torkkeli, M., Conn, S. and Bitran, I. (eds). ISBN 978-952- 214-594-9.
Meristö, T., Paasi, J., Leppimäki, S., Valkokari, P., Laitinen, J., Maijala, P., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T. and Molarius, R. (2006). Managing the Uncertainty of the Future in the BusinessDriven Innovation Process (in Finnish with English Summary). Turku: Corporate Foresight Group CoFi /Åbo Akademi University.
Orihata, M and C Watanabe (2000). The interaction between product concept and institutional inducement: A new driver of product innovation. Technovation 20, pp. 11-23.
Paasi, J., Valkokari, P., Maijala, P., Luoma, T. and Toivonen, S. (2007). Managing Uncertainty in the Front End of Radical Innovation Development, In Proc. 16th International Conference for the International Association of Management Technology, IAMOT 2007.
pp.1306-1324. ISBN 0- 9712964-9-9.
Paasi, J., Luoma, T., Strong, R. and Zhou, R. (2008b) Systematic Strategic Decision Support for Innovation Development, EuroMOT 2008, The third European Conference on Management of Technology, Nice, France, September 17 - 19, 2008
http://webintec.ceram.fr/euromot2008/index.php?cmd=2Paper, ISBN 0-9815817-1-4.
Paasi, J., Valkokari, P., Maijala, P., Toivonen, S., Luoma, T., Molarius, R. (2008a), Managing Opportunities, Risk and Uncertainties in New Business Creation – Working Report, VTT 2008, ISBN 978-951-38-7138-3, 40 p.
Schwandt, T.A. (1994) Constructivist, Interpretivist Approaches to Human Inquiry. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) SAGE Publications.
SME Risk Management Toolkit. SME vulnerability analysis. Booklet. http://www.pkrh.com/. VTT. [Read 14.4.2008].
Suokas, J. and Kakko, R. (1993) Safety Analysis, Risk Analysis, Risk Management, In Quality management of safety analysis, Suokas, J. and Rouhiainen, V. (eds.), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 9-10.
Ulleberg, T. (1993) Vulnerability analysis In Quality management of safety analysis, Suokas, J. and Rouhiainen, V. (eds.), Amsterdam:
Elsevier, pp. 78-83.
Ullrich, K. and Eppinger, S. (2004) Product Design and Development (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bommer M. and Jalajas D.S. (2004) Innovation Sources of Large and Small: Technology-Based Firms. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 51, No. 1, February 2004.
IBM Global CEO Study 2006 Event Presentation (pdf-presentation, http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/19289.wss).
Hippel E. (2005) Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press.