the third rwth open innovation …...software support, consultancy, or executive education enhance...

Kathleen Diener and Frank T. Piller

T H E T H I R D R W T H O P E N I N N O V AT I O N A C C E L E R AT O R S U R V E Y

The Market for Open Innovation: Collaborating in Open Ecosystems for Innovation

PREVIEW


This is a preview and extract of this market report. To access the full version, containingdetailed profiles and classifications of more than 100 platforms, intermediaries, and facilitatirs for open innovation, head to study.open-innovation.com.

http://study.open-innovation.com

http://oia.open-innovation.com

3nd edition, September 2019

Project director and editor in chief: Kathleen Diener Academic advisor: Frank Piller Survey design and data acquisition: Ekaterina Keppeler, Anja LeckelFurther contributors: Dirk Lüttgens, Patrick Pollok, André Witzel, Matthias Geiger Layout and graphics: Markus Lichte

© Copyright 2019 by RWTH TIM Group, RWTH Aachen University. All rights reserved. Published with Lulu Publishing, Raleigh, NC, USA.

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

study.open-innovation.com

The Third RWTH Open Innovation Accelerator Survey


A market study of intermediaries, brokers, platforms and facilitators helping organizations to profit from open innovation and customer co-creation

6 ExECUTIvE SUMMARy AND PREFACE

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y A N D P R E F A C E

The Third Open Innovation Accelerator Survey

01

7EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE

Executive summary

Sixty-one (57 percent) of the OIAs contacted provided us with a complete data set. For the remaining companies, we used secondary data sources such as white papers etc. In total, this study is the largest inquiry of the global market of open innovation. We can structure OIAs according to their primary focus of service:

We find that OIAs can be clearly distinguished into three groups:

5 A first group runs an open innovation project on behalf of their clients and provides a solution to a given task.

5 The second group helps their clients in building own open innovation competences to engage in direct collaboration with external entities. The latter has a stronger focus on educational aspects.

5 A third group provides IT solutions supporting clients’ self-conducted open innovation initiatives.

In general, OIAs classify their service offerings along three categories: (1) open innovation contest, (2) open direct search, (3) open innovation workshops. These methods are a manifestation of different forms of innovation search for external knowledge from the perspective of the OIA client.

We differentiate between:

5 Delegated search, calling for individuals to identify themselves and contributing to a given task;

5 Direct searching for relevant information or individuals according to a given task.

5 Hybrid search in terms of calling for individuals, but within a pre-defined set of potential participants.

Our survey revealed that idea or solution contests – based on delegated search – are still the dominant services offered by OIAs today. Often services like software support, consultancy, or executive education enhance the OIAs’ offerings.

For the third time, this study explores that market of open innovation accelerators (OIA), organizations that help their clients to include external experts in all stages of an innovation project. We invited about 107 intermediaries to join a ninety minutes online survey investigating the OIA’s business model and environment, productivity, services offered, project specifics, and characteristics of their participant pool. We also asked about estimates for the development of the open innovation market. With additional data from surveying and interviewing OIAs’ clients and community members, this report provides a detailed overview of this industry.

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND PREFACE

Our 2019 study reveals that the market for open innovation has passed the big hype in 2015 and isnow in the stage of developing a deep understanding of central functional principles. This is reflected by descreasing project prices and growth stagnation. The broad distribution of open innovation projects over various industry sectors demonstrates that thisapproach belongs to recent innovation practice. Themarket in general stagnates. However, OIAs expect it to grow further. A self-assessment by the OIAs in our study reveals an estimate of the recent market volume of € 1.3billion. OIAs expect that this volume will increase withinthe next years (until 2023) to € 3 billion.

When comparing the data from our past studies with thepresent findings, we find that the average cost for an OIproject with an OIA decreased from USD 43,000 to USD18,000. Nevertheless, project costs differ widely, ranging from USD 0 (for a basic free trial) to USD 120,000 (e. g. when including OI consulting service). The main project cost driver remains personnel capacity. In the end, OIAs are no IT services or run “self-service internet platforms”, but in average a knowledge-intensive service business that requires skilled project managers and analysts.

Environmental dynamism and competitive pressurecharacterize the market. More than a third of the OIAsperceive changes in the market as unpredictable (38.3%). In general, the OIAs in our sample stated that they continuously have altered their business model inall aspects since their founding.

Overall, we find that OIAs provide value to their clients.78 percent of all OIA projects terminate with a successfulknowledge exchange at the end of the project.

The OIA business central characteristic is that it connects two sides – knowledge seeker and knowledge provider. OIAs connect clients (knowledge seeker) through theircommunities with a variety of external actors (knowledge provider), most of them are new and unknown to theclient (this “looking out of the box” is exactly the value of open innovation). This structure of relationship goes beyond simply intermediating between supplyand demand. It rather is about creating value for allparticipants.

OIAs build on the involvement of a community. Theirservices differ significantly regarding their community composition. On average, we find that OIAs have 16,500members in their existing pool of participants (their“community”). OIAs specializing on ideation or technical contests often have communities of more than 100,000members.

The general level of expertise of the community significantly differs among the different services. OIAs offering technical search services in form of technology scouting, for example, have access to high-level expert communities, while OIAs focusing on ideation and concept generation often have a broad, very heterogeneous community of “average” or “trendsetting” consumers. To join the pool of participants, prospective participants have to accept general terms and conditions, but ingeneral do not have to sign a formal contract. This is acore difference of open innovation via OIAs compared to traditional forms of collaboration such as R&D networks or alliances. OIA motivate community participation mainlyby providing the opportunity to earn a fixed cash award orthe ability to co-create with an organization.


Open innovation is a highly interactive process where an undefined number of individuals is communicating intensively and engages in cooperation and exchange. External actors are often integrated from the start to the end of a project. OIAs have to actively shapecollaborations through excellent communication andtransparency. This fosters a trustful relationship network. We find that only a deep understanding of theneeds and preferences of all partners creates value for all. Typical outcomes of an OIA project range from raw ideas to sophisticated concepts. The majority are technical concepts and raw ideas (63%).

Selecting an OIA from the client side very much dependson the expected outcome. The type of task and thenature of the innovation problem drives the decision. Notall OIAs are suited for every open innovation challenge. OIAs further differ with regard to the breadth, scope, andstructure of their pool of potential participants, and theoptions for clients to control access to this pool and theinteraction within a given project.

Today open innovation has become a standard in newproduct and service development. The core idea ofopen innovation to engage an open, undefined networkof people in form of an open call or open direct search activity seems to be transferrable to a variety of tasks and industries. We even find that OIAs recently offer support for systematic business model innovation.


Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12What is Open Innovation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Intermediaries for Open Innovation: Open Innovation Accelerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Innovative Search: A Core Activity to Find New Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Methods of Open Innovation and Corresponding Services of OIAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Open Innovation Contests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Open Direct Search. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Open Innovation Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Putting Open Innovation into Practice: Open Innovation Competences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Open Innovation Competence as an Organizational Prerequisite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Organizational Information Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Preventing Not-Invented-Here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Methodology of the 2019 OIA Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37The OIA Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Questions and Answering Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Sample Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37Data Quality and Triangulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Special Note to Market Volume Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Key Results of the 2019 OIA Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39The OIA Market 2019: Core Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39OIA Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40The Project Perspective: Project Objectives and Project Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41Pool of Potential Participants (“Community”) and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

The Business of Being an OIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The OIA Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45The Seekers' Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46The Solvers' Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53An Integrative View on the Business of OIAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


Recent Research on Open Innovation from Our Lab at RWTH Aachen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58OIA perspective: Research about open innovation accelerators and platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Seeker perspective: Research on capabilities and processes to profit from external sources for your innovation process . . 58Seeker perspective: Research on creating attitudes, mindsets, and a culture for open innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Solver perspective: Research on drivers to participate in open innovation and crowdsourcing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Selective Further Readings on Setting-Up Your Open Innovation Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60General introductions and overview texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Searching for technical solutions and technical crowdsourcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Searching for customer and employee ideas and market insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61Further Reading on OIAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63The Third OIA Market Survey: Facilitating Collaborations in Open Innovation Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Mechanisms of Open Innovation and Corresponding Services of OIAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Participant Pool Composition, Recruitment and Collaboration with Project Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Facts and figures of the OIA Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90OIA Market Size and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96The OIA project level: Cost, Duration, and Output of Typical Client Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

OIA Company Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Pre-Structuring Your Search for the Right OIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115OIA Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Participant Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126How to read the OIA profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127OIAs Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Note for the fast reader: For an overview on open innovation services, jump to page 22 For the key results of our study of the open innovation market place, jump to page 39 To learn about typical project characteristics (duration, costs etc.), go to page 41To learn how the different open innovation intermediaries can be structured, head to page 115 To get detailed information about all OIAs, see their profiles and go to the Appendix on page 120


Successful innovation is not solely performed internally within a firm, but in a cooperative mode with other external actors. Open innovation (OI) has developed from an emerging practice by a few pioneering companies in the early 2000s into an established concept and tool of modern technology & innovation management. Open innovation today is a projectable approach of integrating and collaborating knowledge and inputs from a wide variety of actors in the external environment of an organization. Sources of external input for innovation are plentiful, including market actors like customers, suppliers, competitors; the scientific system of university labs and research institutions; public authorities like patent agents and public funding agencies; and mediating parties like technology consultants, media, and conference organizers.

What – in our perspective – differentiates OI from other forms of collaborative innovation like alliances or contract research is the search for “unobvious” collaboration partners who provide novel knowledge and input and their integration in a more informal way beyond

strong contracts and NDAs. New forms of organizing distributed problem solving like crowdsourcing have become a leitmotif for many innovation departments.

Nevertheless, when engaging in OI, organizations face the challenge of creating their specific ecosystem that allows them to profit from external input in an efficient and effective way. This challenge is twofold:

1. Firstly, companies have to know which tools exist to tap into external knowledge stocks for innovation in a flexible way. They have to gain knowledge how to operate these approaches and learn about their success factors, and when which tool is an appropriate approach.

2. Secondly, companies have to identify the pool of potential external partners that can contribute to their open innovation process. Remember – open innovation wants to integrate partners that are “unobvious” and new to the innovating organization. This demands novel approaches and intermediaries.

Preface

Kathleen DienerKathleen Diener Frank T. Piller


Since the early 2000s, and especially in the last decade, a number of service providers have been established, helping companies to address these challenges. We call them Open Innovation Accelerators (OIA). Theseintermediaries, consultancies, and agencies support their clients to accelerate an open innovation project by providing dedicated tools, methods, education, process consulting, and in many cases access to anestablished network of potential external contributors orparticipants.

Since 2010, we are interested in these essential players for open innovation. With more than 100 OIAs, however, this is a complex market difficult to navigate. Here, ourreport “The Market for Open Innovation” wants to help. For its third edition, we have invested in an intense process of analyzing providers of open innovation services. We build on our highly successful prior editions, but have totally revised and updated all data, analysis, and presentations.

Note that our focus is on so-called “inbound openinnovation”, i. e. the search and absorption of external input and knowledge for an organization’s innovation process. There also is “outbound open innovation”, i. e. the transfer and commercialization of internally developed technologies at an external market place. While some of the OIAs covered in our study also engagein outbound innovation, our analysis is based on inboundopen innovation.

In the following sections, we take a detailed look on theoffered services, market size, community characteristics, costs, and project structures for open innovation. Ourpurpose is to deliver a basis for strategic decisions whenplanning an open innovation venture in an organization. This report is part of a large research program on openinnovation at our institute for technology and innovation management at RWTH Aachen University (RWTH TIM).An appendix lists some important other studies of thisprogram (p. 56).

The objective of the study is to provide managers responsible for an open innovation project guidance how …

5 to understand the market of companies offering help with an open innovation process,

5 to identify different approaches when outsourcing an open innovation initiative,

5 to gain an overview of the actors available for openinnovation from a global perspective,

5 to calculate cost and time required for an openinnovation project,

5 to contact potential partners for an open innovation project in a directed way.


Open innovation means collaboration and crowdsourcing. Likewise, the research and development of this report has been an activity of collaboration with a large project team. We first thank all of our core contacts within the OIA space for the input and effort to engage in this market study (which also involved a larger academic study and survey). We thank Ekaterina Keppeler, André Witzel, and Matthias Geiger for helping with designing the study, data editing, formatting, presentation drafting, and fact checking. Anja Leckel contributed to this study with engaged data acquisition and analysis since the study is part of her doctoral research at RWTH Aachen University.Markus Lichte did a marvelous job in bringing our report into an attractive layout.

Our special thanks go to our academic colleagues Dirk Lüttgens, Patrick Pollok, and the team from Harvard Business School and the Laboratory for Innovation and Science at Harvard, Karim Lakhani, Jin Paik and Michael Menietti, who have discussed the concepts and results of the study intensively with us. Finally yet importantly, we thank all of our readers from the prior editions who provided input for the third edition.

Accordingly, we encourage you to ask us questions, provide input or your ideas for the next edition of this report. We are open for interaction!

Aachen, September 2019 Kathleen Diener & Frank Piller

RWTH Aachen University School of Business & Economics | Institute for Technology and Innovation Management Kackertsr. 7, 52072 Aachen, Germany [email protected] | [email protected] Tel. +49 241 809 3577 http://time.rwth-aachen.de/tim http://open-innovation.com

02

W H AT I S O P E N I N N O V AT I O N ?


02

16 WHAT IS OPEN INNOVATION?

What is open innovation?

The innovation literature has used the term open innovation to characterize an innovation process that operates as an open search and solution process between several agents beyond conventional organizational and technical boundaries (Chesbrough 2006; Dahlander and Gann 2010). As a management approach, open innovation offers a set of different methods and practices, which support innovating companies to identify and integrate relevant external knowledge. The idea is to enable new forms of distributed idea generation and problem solving beyond conventional arrangements such as innovation alliances or contract research (Reichwald & Piller 2009). In practice, the term open innovation has been applied for many different kinds of interactions in the innovation process. Open innovation is seen as collaborating with an unspecific target group, solving problems in a strategic way. Most practitioners connect activities like creating, sharing, or connecting with the term open innovation (OIA Survey 2013).

But more important than the term is the value open innovation provides to an organization. In general, its contribution is in reducing one or both sources of uncertainties every organization faces during the innovation process (Thomke 2003):

5 Uncertainties regarding the market environment: What are the untapped needs of the users? How can the needs of customers be translated into tangible

requirements? Which market developments can be expected?

5 Uncertainty regarding technological issues: Does the applied technology offer an advantage to fulfill customer requirements? What technology makes the production process more efficient and effective?

To reduce these uncertainties, organizations need to gather two types of information (von Hippel 1998):

5 Information on customer and market needs(“market information” or, synonymously, “need information”), i. e. information about preferences, needs, desires, satisfaction, motives, etc. of customers and users of a new product or a new service offering. Better access to sufficient need-related information from customers is increasing the effectiveness of the innovation activities. It reduces the risk of failure. Market/need information builds on an in-depth understanding and appreciation of the users’ or customers’ requirements, operations and systems. This information is transferred by means of market research techniques from customers to manufacturers.

5 Information on (technological) solution possibilities(“technological information” or, synonymously “solution solution”), i. e. information about how to

Organizations following the open innovation idea strive to acquire, integrate, and process external information and input for their innovation process more efficiently and effectively. Open innovation means to integrate the inputs of “unobvious others”, i. e. sources of input not already known to the firm,. By applying open innovation, an organization can overcome its local search bias and acquire precise market and technological information.

17WHAT IS OPEN INNOVATION?

best apply a technology to transform customer needs into new products and services. Access to technological/solution information is primarily addressing the efficiency of the innovation process. Better technological/solution information enables product developers to engage in more directed problem-solving activities in the innovation process. The more complex and radical an innovation is, the larger in general the need to access technological/ solution information from different domains.

All innovations can be characterized by these two information types. Usually, market and technological information may be located physically in different places which are often external to the firm‘s innovation process. It is necessary to transfer at least a certain amount of each type of information from one place to another as successful innovation requires a combination of the two (Reichwald & Piller 2009).

In a conventionally “closed” system of innovation, it is very likely that only market and technological information that already is in the domain of the manufacturer is used as a creative input. This phenomenon has been called the problems of local search and industry blindness (Brunswicker & Hutschek 2010; Stuart & Podolny 1996; Rosenkopf & Nerkar 2001). While local, contextually bounded searches turn out to be advantageous when current problems are similar to old problems, e. g. in the case of improvements of existing products and processes, such search routines often do not lead to radical advancements.

When focusing on a limited solution space, companies only apply the most obvious instead of the most efficient solutions in order to solve an innovation problem. Tapping instead into the knowledge of a variety of external agents has been shown to overcome the negative biases of purely local search-based problem solving approaches (Jeppesen & Lakhani 2010).

In an innovation system open to external input, the knowledge of the firm is extended by the large base of information about needs, applications, and solution technologies that resides in the domain of customers, users, retailers, suppliers, and other external parties. Information from various external actors can be transferred into the innovation function of the firm along all stages of the innovation process (Lakhani et al. 2006). Thus, just by increasing the potential pool of information, better results should become possible. The term ‘open innovation’ characterizes this system where innovation is not solely performed internally within a firm but in a cooperative mode with other external actors. Following Chesbrough and Bogers (2014), companies can and should use both internal and external paths to the market, in order to advance their technology. The innovation process thus can be seen as a continuous interaction between internal actors of a firm and external actors in its periphery (Knudsen 2007). This process is facilitated by a number of specialized intermediaries – open innovation accelerators (OIAs) – who apply their specialized methods as a service for other organizations to bridge the gap between solution seeking companies and external solvers (Feitler et al. 2012). We will explore the full set of methods for open innovation in the method section on page 22.


Intermediaries for open innovation: open innovation accelerators

Organizations often struggle to implement open innovation in their established processes. Common questions include:

5 How can I identify and transfer external knowledge into my innovation process?

5 Who are suited external actors who could contribute input for my innovation challenge?

5 How do I find these external actors? What is the scope of their community?

5 How can I incentivize the best external contributors to share their knowledge with me?

5 I want to post an open call for a technical challenge, but do not want to reveal to my competitors and customers that it is our firm posting this challenge. What can I do?

In the last decade, dedicated firms have emerged that are specialized to give answers to these questions by providing services, methods, or forms of technological infrastructure to execute open innovation initiatives.

We call them Open Innovation Accelerators (OIA), intermediaries, consultancies, and agencies helping their clients to accelerate an open innovation project by providing dedicated tools, methods, access to an established community of solvers or participants, but also education and process consulting. OIAs are an integral part of open innovation. Without OIAs, the application of open innovation would not be possible for many firms.

Intermediaries always had an important role for innovation. Initially called ‘middlemen’, innovation intermediaries started to evolve as disseminators of knowledge about technical improvements in Britain since the 16th century (Howells 2006). Intermediaries provide a variety of tasks within the innovation processes of their clients, e. g., technology scouting, business development, R&D collaborations, managing development time and many more. Interacting with an intermediary can increase the likelihood to receive the required knowledge or can increase the chance to find and use the right channel of bringing an own technology to market (Chesbrough 2003).

Intermediaries are agents performing a variety of tasks within the innovation process for their clients. They mainly connect an actor with different knowledge sources. Intermediaries differ in their role (information scanning, gathering, communication and exchange) and the focus of their service on specific stages of the innovation process or stakeholder groups.

Open Innovation Accelerators (OIA) are intermediaries, consultancies, or agencies who help their clients to accelerate an open innovation project by providing dedicated tools, methods, access to an established community of solvers or participants, but also education and process consulting.


Their original function of information brokering canbe executed to an increasing degree by the innovating firm itself. By applying new methods of search andbrokerage, utilizing new information and communication technologies (ICT), companies in many industries have been enabled to perform intermediary functionslike information scanning and gathering on their ownwith high efficiency. The increasing opportunities to network on a large scale, as facilitated by social networktechnologies like LinkedIn or Facebook, have strongly decreased the effort to find new contacts or interesting sources of information.

At the same time, however, these technologies have increased the number of possible transaction partner tremendously. This makes it difficult for companies to keep an overview over the potential interaction partners, and also to connect to the most appropriate ones. Here, new offerings of innovation intermediaries have come into practice. Today, intermediaries are

curators of information. They identify, filter, and pre-select the required information on a global scale. They help companies to design permeable organizational boundaries and to benefit from different knowledge sources, while at the same time providing advice, managing risk, tracking IP, educating participants, andtracking performance.

Open Innovation Accelerators defined Open Innovation Accelerators (OIA) are intermediariesthat operate on the behalf of companies seeking to innovate in cooperation with external actors from their periphery. OIAs offer one or several methods of open innovation and, in many instances, also provide supporting services for the innovation process. Their methods are especially focused on the integration of external actors. In consequence, OIAs facilitate the collaboration between an innovating company and its environment. They accelerate a company’s open innovation process.


Innovative search: a core activity to find new knowledge

In its core, open innovation is a concept of search (Laursen & Salter, 2006). Search is a key activity in any innovation process to acquire relevant technical or market knowledge. In this sense, OIAs provide dedicated infrastructures to apply specialized search methods to bridge between, often previously unconnected, knowledge sources. However, OIAs vary largely in how they search for this knowledge. Two fundamentally different search approaches can help to categorize how OIAs connect a company searching for external input, often called the seeker, with external solvers, i. e. the potential external information providers (Figure 1):

Direct search: The first search strategy resembles the traditional understanding of search to actively seek for the required knowledge, like when you search for information in Google. Direct search requires the searching organization (seeker) to directly determining a search scope. Managers perceiving an innovation problem define with the help of an OIA a set of solution providers (solvers) as potentially relevant contributors and then search for the “best” solution within this set. Thus, OIAs following a direct search approach have to make assumptions regarding the location of relevant knowledge sources. A good example of a corresponding practice are intermediaries that apply the method of “Netnography” to scan a pre-defined set of social media sources or user communities for market insights (Kozinets et al., 2010).

Delegated (Indirect) search: The second search strategy is associated with terms like crowdsourcing, idea contests, or broadcast search (Afuah & Tucci 2012; Jeppensen & Lakhani 2010). In this type of search, the OIAs outsource an innovation problem of the seeker to a “crowd” of potential solvers by publishing an open call for contributions. Such an open call can be, for example, the task of an ideation contest on a dedicated internet platform, asking customers and other external contributors, for ideas and concepts. Another example are platforms that post technical challenges. In both examples, potential contributors self-select to the task and compete for the winning solution. In these cases, OIAs do not have to make specific assumptions about the location of potential knowledge sources. The activity of searching is “delegated” (Erat & Krishnan, 2012) from the problem owner (OIAs and seekers) to the external knowledge sources (solvers). In our understanding, especially these delegated search approaches constitute the “novelty” of the open innovation paradigm.

The core activity of OIAs is to search for knowledge and collaboration partners. This search activity can be distinguished by two approaches: direct vs. delegated search. Deciding for a search type requires also making a decision regarding the preferred degree of openness and level of involvement by the innovating company.


Our research (Diener et al., 2019; Pollok et al., 2019a; Pollok et al., 2019b; Ihl et al., 2019; Gatzweiler et al., 2017) shows that the type of search influences the effort that is needed to coordinate all participants to achieve the project objectives. Consequently, the interaction process applied for direct search differs from a process for delegated search. OIAs following a direct search strategy identify relevant solvers, contact the most promising ones, and then negotiate a transfer of their solutions to the seeker. OIAs following a delegated search strategy have to formulate a problem statement (including the terms of the transfer) and then post it in a way that as many potential solvers as possible get awareness from the task. Potential solvers then identify themselves when they believe to have a suitable solution.

In general, we found in our research that delegated search is more cost efficient than the traditional direct search approach (Diener et al. 2019). However, delegated search is not always the best option. There are many variations of search. Relevant factors to pick one of the two search forms are, for example, the completeness of the problem specification, the granularity of the problem, and the ability formulate clear performance criteria to prevent a potential mismatch between the perceived solution qualities by problem owners (seekers) and solution providers, or the credibility (signaling power) of the problem owner (Pollok et al. 2019b).

Figure 1: Two forms of search to organize open innovation

Seeker searches for solutions/knowledge provided by solvers

DIRECT (search)

Using dedicated search approaches(and experiences) to find desired

pieces of knowledge (technologies)

FOCUS: knwoledge stock

Expand the breadth and depth of your search, i. e. the number of search channels and depth of use per channel (supplier, customer, university,

technology provider, ...)

DELEGATED (search) / "Broadcasting"

Open call / announcement of a "task" to an undefined large network of potential contributors

who sell-select whether to contribute

FOCUS: People (organizations)

Expand the network of potential external actors: without making concrete assumptions about the

input source

DETERMINE OPENNESS


Methods of open innovation and corresponding services of OIAs

According to our research, engaging in open innovation means to make a decision along two fundamental principles, which we already explained before: (1) the kind of information required and (2) the type of search to identify and initiate the collaboration with an external actor. The relevance of these principles lies in their functional necessity for problem solving in an organizational context. Both principles help to distinguish different open innovation approaches.

(1) The type of information searched falls into two classes:

5 Need information is information about customer and market needs, i. e. information about preferences, needs, desires, satisfaction, motives, and etc. of the customers and users of a new (potential) product or service offering.

5 Solution information is information on technological) solution possibilities, i. e. information about how to apply a technology to transform customer needs into new products and services best.

Engaging in open innovation means to decide (1) what kind of information is required (need and solution information) and (2) whether direct or delegated search should be applied. Combining the information type and the search form allows to distinguish the core methods for open innovation:

Delegated search:

5 Need information: Ideation contests (customer co-creation)

5 Solution information: Solution contests (crowdsourcing or broadcast search)

Direct search:

5 Need information: Market research (online community observations, Netnography, customer communities)

5 Solution information: Technology search (expert search; machine learning approaches to screen large knowledge repositories; virtual market places for IP and technologies)

Note: Activities targeting the generation of market/need information are often called “co-creation”, while the term open innovation is used for activities targeting technological (solution) information.


Our data from this and previous OIA market reports find asignificant difference between OIAs who are specialized on finding need information compared to those searching for solution information. Solving specific technological problems favors different approaches than searching for market needs. Also, very different participant communities with different incentive schemes are beingaddressed.

(2) The second open innovation principle refers to theway how participants are selected and involved. We candistinguish two basic forms search:

5 As described before, direct search refers to a broad search for information and sources, conducted by the OIA. “Openness” in direct search means to have neither too concrete pre-assumptions aboutinformation aspects nor source details, and to searchin a large scope of different knowledge sources. This can be achieved, for example, by advanced sampling methods, engaging in pre-screening, orusing social network analysis to identify central actors from different domains. The idea also here isto find “unobvious others”, i. e. those not in the core reference set and circle of the innovating firm.

5 Delegated search means to formulate a problem statement that is publicly announced, directed to a heterogeneous, and generally large, network ofexternal actors. The idea behind this approach is to spread the problem statement as widely as possible, allowing even unknown outsiders to contribute to its solution. Potential solution providers (solvers) then decide via self-selection whether they want to participate in the process of finding a solution to the respective technical problem or not. The seeker

then selects the best-submitted solutions andeither awards a pre-defined incentive to the winningsolver or engages in collaboration with the identified solution provider.

Our study revealed that OIAs apply these two fundamentalsearch styles in many variations. Some methods like workshops follow a rather hybrid approach somewhere between direct and delegated search. In practice, many OIAs apply a two-step procedure of direct followed by indirect search: They first pre-select a field with potential external actors who might hold the desired information and then call for participation within this sub-sample. Combining the two general principles, we can distinguish between different methods for open innovation. We callthese methods “OIA services” in the following, as theseare the services and solutions offered by an OIA:

5 Open innovation contests: Calling for contributions to a technical and/or market related task with theobjective to identify the “best” submission.

5 Open search for information: Searching directly for solution information (patents, technologies, userbases) and/or need information (e. g., Netnography in online forums).

5 Open innovation workshops: Generating solutionand/or need information by performing workshops (brainstorming, innovation, lead user workshops etc.)

We will describe the basic methods (services) in thefollowing, as our market study has been structured around these service types. Table 1 at the end of thissection outlines the role and tasks of an OIA whenperforming these services.


Open innovation contests

Contests aim at the generation of input for all stages of the innovation process and are typical for the delegated search approach. A seeker calls on internal or external participants (employees, customers, users, experts, etc.) either to disclose innovative ideas and suggestions for product improvement or it asks for a specific solution for a dedicated (technical) innovative task. In both cases, the task is broadcasted to an unknown (rather large) group of potential recipients asking for participation. Potential contributors (“solvers”) screen the task and self-select whether they want to become engaged in the collaboration (Benkler & Nissenbaum 2006; Lakhani et al. 2006). The call for contributions can be addressed to the general public or a specific target group. In order to support interaction between organizers and participants as well as among groups of participants, idea contests are mostly internet-based and supported by software today.

Depending on the intended type of information, two contest forms can be distinguished:

A. Co-creation contests gather innovative ideas at the frontend of the innovation process by generating market information and broadly tap into customer needs, either in the form of idea contests (collecting ideas and suggestions) or design contests (collecting more elaborated concepts) (Piller & Walcher 2006). These contests are often hosted on a public platform, in most cases revealing the name of the seeker, but also showing all contributions to all participants. Participants are invited to browse, comment, and evaluate other contributions. Incentives are often rather low and just a recognition for the work done by the contributors.

In general, co-creation or idea contests cover core activities at the front end of innovation: (1) generating novel concepts and ideas and (2) selecting specific concepts and ideas to be pursued further (O’Hern & Rindfleisch, 2009). Both of these tasks have successfully been handed over to customers by the means of an idea contest (Ebner et al., 2009; Piller & Walcher, 2006). In an idea contest, a firm seeking innovation-related information posts a request to a population of independent, competing agents (e. g. customers), asking for solutions to a given task within a given time frame. The firm then provides an award to the participant that generates the best solution. Idea contests thus address a core challenge for firms when opening the innovation process, which is how to incentivize participants to transfer their innovative ideas. A solution reward is important in the early stages of the innovation process because customers are unlikely to benefit directly from their contributions through new product availability within a short time frame, as often occurs in later stages of the innovation process. Some companies promise cash rewards or licensing contracts for innovative ideas; others build on nonmonetary acknowledgments – promising peer or company (brand) recognition that facilitates a pride-of-authorship effect. Obviously, rewards or recognitions are not given to everyone submitting an idea, but only to those with the “best” submissions. This competitive mechanism is an explicit strategy to foster customer innovation. It should encourage more or better customers to participate, should inspire their creativity, and should increase the


quality of the submissions. For instance, over 120,000 individuals around the world served as voluntary members of Boeing’s World Design Team, contributing input to the design of its new 787 Dreamliner airplane (www.newairplane.com). Today we find a broad range of idea contests in practice. A good starting point to explore this field is www.innovation-community.de, a site listing more than 80 idea contests. These are differentiated according to the degree of problem specification, that is, does the problem clearly specify the requirements for the solution sought, or is it more or less an open call for solutions to a vaguely specified problem? In a successful idea contest, a firm might easily end up with hundreds or thousands of ideas generated by customers. They might be evaluated by a panel of experts from the solution-seeking firm and ranked according to a set of evaluation criteria, but we believe that without the integration of users in the idea screening process, large-scale idea contests are not possible. However, Toubia and Flores (2007) also propose that in light of a potentially very large number of ideas, it is unreasonable to ask each consumer to evaluate more than a few ideas. This raises the challenge of efficiently selecting the ideas to be evaluated by each consumer.

B. Technical/tournament-based crowdsourcing contests (Afuah & Tucci 2012) seek technological information to a technical problem at a later stage in the innovation process. Here, a dedicated task is broadcasted to a community of experts and technology providers, often in a form that the name of the seeker is not revealed (to not inform competitors). The task is accompanied with clear

technical performance criteria to define what makes a winning solution. To keep the IP and competitive advantage of the seeker and solvers, submitted solutions in general are not visible to the other actors or even the public. Incentives for participation here are often high and match the business value of the submitted solution to the seeker’s problem.

In the last decade, crowdsourcing has gained relevance for both scholars and practitioners (Afuah & Tucci, 2012). Many crowdsourcing initiatives are administrated and governed by specialized intermediaries that offer crowdsourcing as a service (Dahlander & Piezunka, 2014; Pollok et al., 2019a; Lopez-Vega et al., 2016). OIAs support the process by engaging large established communities of potential contributors and providing an Internet-enabled communication infrastructure for the effective dissemination of their clients’ technology needs. In the area of technical development and problem solving, dedicated OIAs play a central role. Generating connections between structurally separated fields of knowledge, crowdsourcing intermediaries act as knowledge brokers and help their clients to overcome internal limitations in terms of technical and market knowledge (Howells, 2006; Sieg et al., 2010).

OIAs such as NineSigma, InnoCentive, IXC, and Yet2.com broadcast the technology needs of firms (“seekers”) to a heterogeneous network of external experts (potential “solvers”), who then self-select to participate and submit solution proposals to the problem at hand (Lopez-Vega & Vanhaverbeke, 2016). So-called requests for proposals (RFPs) or


problem statements make the seekers’ technology needs understandable for potential contributors from other disciplines, targeting in particular apparently unrelated and distant domains. An RFP originates from a task of a “challenge owner”, that is, the individual or unit in a (seeker) organization responsible for finding the respective technical knowledge or putting it into use. Hence, similar to idea competitions, the “broadcast search” method is also based on an open call. In contrast to the ideas competition, however, the focus here is on access to solution information. The aim is to find existing technical solutions or external experts with good previous knowledge for a precisely defined technical problem (in form of the RFP) within the scope of a development task. Here, too, the problem is advertised broadly and openly, usually by involving an intermediary (Jeppesen & Lakhani, 2010). A cross-industry and international call for solutions (RFP) can usually identify solution providers that the company does not know in advance, which leads to an extension of the range of solution alternatives due to the different knowledge backgrounds of the contributors. Because the development task is not delegated to a supposedly suitable task provider (in the company or by means of classical contract research), potential problem solvers select themselves according to their preferences and abilities. This can lead to a considerable increase in the quality of the solutions, since existing knowledge that is not known to the company can often be used. Knowledge transfer is handled using traditional instruments such as R&D orders, procurement activities, or the acquisition or in-licensing of technical property rights.

We have researched both form of contents rather extensively in our team. Refer to page 58 for more studies and dedicated advice on the design and success factors of these different kinds of contests.

The role of the OIA here is first to support the seeker in formulating the problem statement and to define and monitor the rules for participation. Usually, contests set a period of time in which the participants’ efforts must be accomplished. Then the OIA uses its own channels (internet page, email campaign, social media streams) to publish the call for participation. After ideas or solutions have been submitted, they have to be screened, evaluated, and ranked. Best submissions are either awarded by a committee or selected based on pre-defined solution criteria. A main incentive to participate in a contest lies in receiving an award. Awards can be material or monetary, but also social (reputation and peer-recognition). Depending on the conditions of the contest, this award may include the automatic transfer of the intellectual property (IP) at the solution from the solver to the seeker in exchange to a pre-defined reward. In other cases, winning solvers and the seeker enter a more formal negotiation process on the IP rights and then draft an individual licensing agreement if the seeker wants to put a submission into work.

A number of trade-off decisions influence the interactions in the OI contests. In our research at the TIM Institute, we find two factors shaping the relationship between seekers and solvers (Pollok et al. 2019a, b): (a) The specificity of the problem and (b) the degree of disclosing ones identity or not.


A. Regarding problem specificity, a local problem is a problem that is closely related to a seeker’s current R&D activities and where sufficient expertise in the problem domain is in place. A distant problem is a problem that is unrelated to the seeker’s current R&D activities and expertise. The availability of knowledge in the problem domain (i. e. the problem type) determines a seeker’s ability comprehensively drafting a problem statement. While local problems tend to be over-specified, with strict solution criteria and a restricted solution space, distant problems tend to be fuzzy and under-specified, with solution criteria not being accurately defined. More specific, delegated search for technical crowdsourcing is not an adequate problem solving mechanism for very local problems, nor for very distant problems. In fact, seeker firms will achieve the most benefit by means of most submissions when they choose problems where sufficient domain knowledge is available to formulate the problem comprehensively enough so that solvers can understand the (technical) issue. However, the problem domain should not be too familiar to the seeker that they risk being overly strict in defining solution requirements and evaluation criteria since that limits the solution space for solvers.

B. The option to remain anonymous is actually one of the main reasons why seeker firms use the OIA services. Favoring anonymity means a seeker’s identity is protected (not disclosed) and, thus, competitors or customers will not be informed about the seeker’s development pipeline, open (technical)

challenges, quality issues etc. via the public problem statement. However, seeker firms whose identity is disclosed are perceived as (more) trustworthy by potential solvers. By having the firm name appear in the problem statement, seekers can reduce solvers’ perceived risk of misappropriation and are able to attract more solvers to join the collaboration and submit solution proposals. Moreover, firm identity information (such as a firm’s name) serves as an effective means to signal partner attractiveness. Since solvers are also incentivized by means of future contracts with the seeker, they are more attracted to problem statements from seeker firms who are perceived as financially attractive partners.

These effects can interact with each other, e.g. financially attractive seekers disclosing their identity in the problem statement are able to effectively use delegated search in terms of technical crowdsourcing for very local and very distant problems. In this case, the negative effects of over- or under-specified problem statements are compensated by solver’s expectation of collaborating with a trustworthy and financially attractive partner.


Open direct search

Performing an open (direct) search means applying dedicated search activities in order to find desired pieces of knowledge, technologies, or collaboration partners. The seeker gathers sufficient information about potential knowledge sources and starts negotiating conditions referring the transfer of solutions. The main effort when pursuing the search approach lies in determining the search field according to defined requirements of the needed knowledge. Laursen and Salter (2006) describe the optimal search as a balance between its breadth and depth. That means before actually looking for information, a firm has to choose potential knowledge sources by content and locality. Furthermore, the involved base of knowledge sources strongly varies according to their participation awareness. This can range from conscious participation in form of actively discussing topics to unconscious participation in form being observed online. Again, depending on the intended type of knowledge, two forms can distinguished:

A. Open market searchComplementing traditional forms of market research, a more open form of search recently emerged in form of “listening into” the customer domain by analyzing existing customer information from diverse input channels like feedback from sales people, user forums, or social media channels (Dahan & Hauser 2002). In this context, especially the method of Netnography is noteworthy (Kozinets 1998, 2002). Netnography is “a new qualitative research methodology that adapts ethnographic research techniques to study cultures and

communities that are emerging through computer-mediated communications” (Kozinets 2002: 62). Compared with other methods, it is less time consuming, potentially less obtrusive, and less costly. Netnography is used to primarily analyze the observation of textual discourse. Here, modern machine learning approaches to text mining and content analysis have expedited the coding and analysis of data.

B. Open technology search Technology search relates to identifying and then acquiring desired technical solutions (in form of either in-licensing intellectual property or purchasing this technology). An open technology search relates to identifying technological information and needs, and external technologies satisfying these needs, which are beyond the established set of technical capabilities of the firm. While this kind of search is an established activity in most companies, a number of new digital offerings have added a new dimension.

Virtual market places, for example, use the internet to connect providers and seekers of technologies or skills and therefore provide a greater potential reach than conventional approaches for technology transactions. These market places offer two services: (1) They support the search for new technologies upon a firm’s requirements and (2) support the commercialization and exploitation of a client’s technology. Another recent approach is the


use of advanced text mining and machine learning approaches to scan large sets of scientific and trade literature for new technologies. The power of these approaches lies especially in making connections not found by conventional semantic search algorithms by analyzing a variety of diverse data.

The role of OIAs in open direct search is first to help their clients to exactly understand and outline the information they seek. OIAs possess a special competence in precisely describing the market or technological need, so that the

right keywords and tags are being used in the search network. This competence resembles the skills of a good librarian, but with a focus on innovation. Further, OIAs’ often have a broader network than their clients, reaching also parties beyond the scope of the client firm. Some OIAs also provide a kind of match-making service, using algorithms and profile comparisons to match technology requests with supply. Once matching partners are found, the parties directly negotiate conditions for the technical solution or IP transfer.


Open innovation workshops

Interdisciplinary workshops are another core element of problem solving and innovation in the context of open innovation. The idea is to organize workshops with participants who are beyond the usual suspects of either internal people or “our best customers”. In addition, workshops increasingly are conducted online, using interactive web technology to organize online meetings and collaboration.

A workshop is made up of approximately external 10 to 15 participants, an experienced moderator, who monitors and facilitates the workshop, and in most instances members from the company’s internal project team. Workshops last between an hour and two days (depending upon the complexity of the problem). The role of the moderator is to mediate the contributions made by the participants. The moderator also performs important methodological support in stimulating and structuring participant contributions. Workshops usually begin with a briefing led by the internal team, a presentation of the basic product range, a definition of the problem as well as the problem to be solved. It is important to formulate exactly which results are expected by the end of the workshop. Afterwards, the participants are stimulated to generate their own ideas for solving the problem in several rounds through the use of well-chosen creative problem solving techniques.

Within workshops, we again can differentiate between the search for need and solution information:

A. Ideation workshops strive to generate innovative concepts with the help of users and customers. Different to a traditional focus group, participants are first selected into the workshop not as they are “representative” customers but as they show lead user characteristics or some other innovative behavior. Also, participants shall not just provide feedback on a firm’s ideas, but generate their own concepts. A recent development is the hosting of online workshops or interactions among a limited number of users. In such an online co-creation setting, participants are connected via a dedicated web interface. Using visual tools and online collaboration, participants are asked to comment on each other’s feedback. In other formats of online workshops, participants are placed in a web-forum alike environment and asked to provide initial ideas and feedback on existing products, and to comment on other user’s contributions.

B. Expert or lead user workshops strive to develop concrete new product concepts or collaborate in technical problem solving. The lead user method is a qualitative, process-oriented approach that aims at actively integrating individual selected users into the innovation process. Lead users have, before others, within a target market a personal need for a specific solution. They expect a very high


personal benefit from the new development fulfilling their need. Lead users thus anticipate innovative characteristics early, which much later will become relevant for other customers (von Hippel 2005). In practice, the lead-user method has proven itself in the search for technical solutions to a given problem. To this end, an open but focused process is used to search for a few highly specialized experts with special market and solution knowledge in analogue markets. An analogue market is similar to the target market in terms of the needs of consumers and/or the technology used, but often belongs to a completely different industry. Experts from analogue markets have the same basic problem as the searching company, but to a greater extent or under “extreme” conditions that made a solution appear very urgent in the past. However, lead users are usually not customers from the perspective of the focal company. These experts can provide decisive support for the innovation process, as they can be used to combine knowledge from different domains and thus expand the problem-solving space. To this end, the lead users usually work together in the form of innovation workshops to solve specific questions.

The dedicated contribution of OIAs for these kinds of workshops is particularly the recruitment of “non obvious” participants. The search approach here oftenreflects a hybrid between direct and delegated search. A particular element of an open innovation workshop is the recruitment of participants which shall allow the firm to “think out of the box”.

OIAs usually operate their own community into which they post upcoming workshop sessions. Community members who are interested will respond to these calls. The OIA, together with the client company, selects suitable workshop participants according to pre-defined criteria. In this way, the OIA connects to its delegated search a direct search. However, also the reverse order is possible. First, a preselection of potential workshop participants is carried out in the form of a direct search. Then a call for participation is placed in this preliminary selection, where after the final participants select themselves.

As we have seen in the previous section, there is alarge span of activities and services offered by OIAs. To conclude this section, Table 1 names the core activities how OIAs provide value for their clients inorganizing and facilitating these basic approaches ofopen innovation. This list by far is not comprehensive, but already indicates the large scope in the field of OIAs.


Open Innovation ContestsGenerating contributions to atechnical (solution information) and/or market-related task (need information) by performing adelegated search with the objective to identify the “best” submission

5 Build a pool of potential participants (“solver community”)

5 Help in formulating a taskdescription

5 Providing advice in setting theright incentive

5 Supply a contest platform (software, web-service)

5 Broadcast this task in the OIAcommunity and broadly

5 Community and participant management

5 Monitor contributions (legal, misconduct)

5 Pre-selection of fitting contributions

5 Evaluation of technical performance data

5 Prepare award / jury meeting

5 Communicate results toparticipants, providing feedback

5 Monitor rules of the game, ensuring “fair game”

5 Document IP related issues

5 Integrate new participants into general participant pool

5 Trace KPIs

5 Create interfaces to internal systems (project managementsoftware, idea databases, etc.)

Hybrid search Open Innovation WorkshopsGenerating technical and/or market information by performing workshops (brainstorming, innovation workshops etc.)

5 Provide a pool for potential workshop participants orhelping recruiting participants

5 Help designing the workshop scope and task description

5 Educate participants abouttechnical background

5 Supply moderators and further workshop relevant material

5 Organize the workshop event

5 Guide workshop participants toward the objective of theworkshop

5 Illustrate workshop discussions

5 Document workshop results

5 Transfer workshop ideas into concepts

5 Provide post-event communication

5 Monitor fair use of IP generated during the workshop

Direct search Open Direct Search Directly searching and observing defined areas for need information (e. g., Netnography in online forums) and/or solution information (patents, technologies, user bases)

5 Support in formulating the task

5 Help in framing the search field

5 Identify relevant onlineplatforms and communities

5 Generate a database ofpotential communities

5 Educate social media andcommunity analysts

5 Social media analytics

5 Provide technology for observing community behavior

5 Extracting relevant information

5 Integrate information pieces into ideas or even concepts according to the project objectives

5 Building a broad network of firms, universities, research labs etc.

5 Help formulating technology requests or technology descriptions

5 Development of match-making approaches

5 Bringing interested parties together for negotiation

5 Support negotiation process

5 Provide advice on licensing conditions

5 Monitor rules of the game, ensuring “fair game”

5 Document IP related issues

Table 1: Core and support activities of OIAs along the four core types of service

OIA core activities


Putting open innovation into practice: open innovation competences



Key results of the 2019 OIA survey

The OIA market 2019: core insights

The OIA business has become mature over the past years. At the beginning of the 21st century, the first OIAs appeared on the market. This was when the idea of open innovation was born. In a second wave, between 2004 and 2006, the market performed a 100 percent growth, mainly due to the diffusion of first open innovation success stories from companies like P&G or Philips. Since 2013, we still observe growth in the market for open innovation, but at smaller levels, signaling that the plateau of the market may be reached soon. Compared to 2013, our 2019 data indicate that applying open innovation today is the standard in new product development. The broad distribution of open innovation projects over various industry sectors, that we can observe in our recent OIA data, demonstrates that this approach is highly adaptable. Interestingly, we find that integrating external actors also is an attractive approach for a systematic process of business model innovation.

However, environmental dynamism and competitive pressure characterize the market. More than a third of the OIAs perceive changes in the market as unpredictable (38.3%). In general, the OIAs in our sample stated that they continuously have altered their business model in all aspects since their founding. OIAs seem to have large flexibility in adapting their service offerings to changing client needs. OIAs are also able to quickly alter features of their methodological approach to vary the scope of their service and create customized solutions. The strategy to

ad hoc increasing the project volume, on the other side, is limited due to the fact that in this instance new staff needs to be hired to manage the projects (as most of the offerings of an OIA are high-touch, personnel-intensive services which are difficult to scale).

On average, OIAs conduct a high number of client projectsthroughout a year, many of them 100 and more. According to the estimates of the OIAs, the current market volume of OI services amounts to € 1.3 billion (this number includes the fees and honorariums paid from clients to OIAs, but not the deal and knowledge flow facilitated by the OIAs). OIAs expect that this volume will increase within the next years (until 2023) to € 3 billion. Again, compared to the past studies, a potential market volume of € 3 billion appears to be a commonly agreed ground.

When comparing our current sample with those in 2010 and 2013, we find a strong wave of acquisitions and mergers, which has taken place in the past years. Compared to five years ago, more than 40 percent of OIAs have either been acquired by other players or do not exist any longer. At the same time, a new variation of OIAs enter the market, with an focus on exploiting the opportunities of artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Overall, we find that OIAs provide value to their clients. According to their self-evaluation, they are relatively successful. 78 percent of all OIA projects terminate with a successful knowledge exchange at the end of the project.

Our 2019 OIA report provides detailed analysis from 61 OIAs out of the 107 intermediaries invited to participate in our study (response rate of 57 percent). The results provide insights into the changing business models and market environment perceived by the OIAs, their service range, project KPIs, and community characteristics.


Triangulating our data from the three surveys and interviews allows us to mirror the different perspectives on the OIA business. All parties agree (on average 93%) that collaboration is limited temporarily and strongly project-related. This means that, when a specific problem has been solved, the collaboration ends. This reflects the dominant OIA business approach of creating transactional exchange relationships around individual tasks of a seeker. However, to create a sustainable OIA business, seekers and solvers need to stay involved. About one third of OIAs offer possibilities to interact beyond a specific project, but only 8 percent of seekers and solvers engage in such continuous communication. When looking at the solver communities, solvers are more connected with each other and show established relational networks.

We also find that the different actors in the ecosystem of an open innovation platform have different perceptions of their level of control and insight in the OI process. Take for example the evaluation process of submitted contributions by solvers to a problem. In many cases, OIAs pre-select and filter the submissions. Sometimes, selection criteria are unclear to the seeker. Especially solvers complain about a lack of process transparency after solutions to a problem have been handed in.

All parties agree that the seeker makes the final decision, which is perfectly in line with the OIA business idea. However, solvers self-evaluate their level of control in

the evaluation process at nearly zero, whereas seekers perceive that solvers has almost as much control as they self. The OIAs self-evaluate to have a medium influence, which is not perceived as being so high by seekers and solvers.

In conclusion, our study shows that the OIA business requires more than intermediating between demand and supply of innovative solutions. Based on the study results and our research at the TIM Institute, we can summarize some of recent cross-side effects in the OIA business as indicated in Figure 3. OIAs need to actively shape collaborations through excellent communication and transparency. This can foster a trustful relationship network. Furthermore, only a deep understanding of the needs and preferences of all partners creates value for all. Taking the perspective of another party into account helps to address issues which affect multiple sides. To close this discussion, the following example from our solver interviews provides a good summary:

“It is quite good when you are looking for a job and you can say you are a […] master [in the OIA community], which I am. I am head of data science in my company and if I want to employ someone, I just ask if they have participated in [OIA] and then we can talk about it, which will surely influence my opinion” (Solver T3 in technical crowdsourcing)

An integrative view on the business of OIAs


Figure 3: Cross-side effects in the OIA business

Trade-off between problem specificity and solution space

Trade-off between creativityof solutions and readiness to

implement

Trade-off protection against competitors and attractiveness

as collaboration partner

Trade-off between successfulcollaboration and own risk of

right infringement

SEEKER OIA SOLVER

Draft problem statements according to choose local vs.

distant problem

5 Local problem: a problem that is closely related to a seeker's current R&D activities and where sufficient expertise in the problem domain is in place.

5 Distant problem: a problem that is unrelated to the seeker's current R&D activities and expertise.

Degree of identity disclosure

5 Seeker's identity's protected (not disclosed), competitors and customers will not be informed about the seeker's development pipeline.

5 Seeker's identity is disclosed and requests is tied back to the innovation agenda.

Draft solutions according to given specification in problem

statements

5 Less specified problems creative solutions

5 Very detailed problem description and concrete evaluation criteria limit number of solution drafts.

Select problem statements

5 A protected seeker's identity increases the perceived risk of misappropriation.

5 An open seeker identity signals power and trustworthiness of collaboration partner.

57WHAT IS OPEN INNOvATION?


Recent research on open innovation from our lab at RWTH aachen

OIA perspective: Research about open innovation accelerators and platforms

F Kathleen Diener, Dirk Lüttgens and Frank Piller: Intermediation for open innovation: Comparing the effort of different search routines. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23 (2019) In press. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919620500371

F Sebastian Kortmann & Frank Piller: Open Business Models and Closed-Loop Value Chains: Redefining the Firm-Consumer Relationship. California Management Review (CMR). 58 (2016) 3 (Spring 2016): 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fcmr.2016.58.3.88

F Christian Hopp, Jermain Kaminski, and Frank Piller: Accentuating lead user entrepreneur characteristics in crowdfunding campaigns – The role of personal affection and the capitalization of positive events. Journal of Business Venturing Insights. 11 (2019) June: e00106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2018.e00106

Seeker perspective: Research on capabilities and processes to profit from external sources for your innovation process

F Patrick Pollok, Dirk Lüttgens & Frank Piller: How firms develop capabilities for crowdsourcing: The mediating role of knowledge processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36 (2019) 4 (July): 412-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12485

F Patrick Pollok, Dirk Lüttgens & Frank Piller: Attracting submissions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of search distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status. Research Policy. 48 (2019) 1 (February): 98-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.022

F Deborah Roberts, Dirk Lüttgens and Frank Piller: Mapping the Impact of Social Media for Innovation: The Role of Social Media in Explaining Innovation Performance in the PDMA Comparative Performance Assessment Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 33 (2016) S1: 117-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12341

F Frank Piller and Deborah Roberts. Finding the Right Role for Social Media in Innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review. 57 (2016) 3 (Spring): 41-49. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11633.003.0019

In the following, you find a list of our published research results from the various perspectives of the OIA business.


Seeker perspective: Research on creating attitudes, mindsets, and a culture for open innovation

F David Antons and Frank Piller: Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives. 29 (2015) 2: 193-217. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0091

F David Antons, Mathieu Declerck, Kathleen Diener, Iring Koch and Frank Piller: Assessing the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome: Development and Validation of an Implicit and Explicit Measurement Instrument. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 38 (2017) 8 (October): 1227–1245, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2199

F David Antons, Tim Coltman, Timothy Devinney, Julian Hannen, Frank Piller, and Oliver Salge: Curing the Not-Invented-Here syndrome: Symptoms, consequences, and therapies. Research Policy. 48 (2019) 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103822

F Stefanie Paluch, David Antons, Malte Brettel, Christian Hopp, Torsten-Oliver Salge, Frank Piller, and Daniel Wentzel: Stage-gate and agile development in the digital age: Promises, perils, and boundary conditions. Journal of Business Research. In press, Mar 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.063

Solver perspective: Research on drivers to participate in open innovation and crowdsourcing?

F Christoph Ihl, Alexander Vossen & Frank Piller: All for the Money? The Limits of Monetary Rewards in Innovation Contests with Users. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23 (2019) 2: 1950014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919619500142

F Alexandra Gatzweiler, Vera Blazevic, and Frank Piller: Dark Side or Bright Light: Managing Deviant Content in Consumer Ideation Contests. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 34 (2017) 6 (November): 772–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12369.

F Nils Foege, Ghita D. Lauritzen, Frank Tietze, and Torsten Oliver Salge. Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48 (2019) 6, 1323-1339.

F Lisa Schmidthuber, Dennis Hilgers, Frank Piller, Marcel Bogers: Opening up Social Innovation: Investigating citizen participation in open government platforms. R&D Management, 49 (2019) 3 (June: Special Issue: Leveraging open innovation to improve society): 343-355 https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12365


Selective further readings on setting-up your open innovation project

General introductions and overview texts

F Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

F Chesbrough, H. (2011). Open Services Innovation: Rethinking your business to grow and complete in a new era. Jossey-Bass.

F de Beer, J., McCarthy, I. P., Soliman, A., & Treen, E. (2017). Click here to agree: Managing intellectual property when crowdsourcing solutions. Business Horizons, 60(2), 207-217.

F Huston, L. & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble’s New Model for Innovation. Harvard Business Review, March, 1–8.

F Piller, F., Ihl, Cl, Möslein, K., & Reichwald, R. (2017). Interaktive Wertschöpfung Kompakt, Wiesbaden: Gabler Springer.

F Ramaswamy, V. & Gouillart, F. (2010): Building the co-Creative Enterprise. Harvard Business

F Reichwald, R. & Piller, F.T. (2009): Interaktive Wertschöpfung. 2. Auflage, Wiesbaden: Gabler.

F Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. The MIT Press.

Searching for technical solutions and technical crowdsourcing

F Boudreau, K., & Lakhani, K. (2009). How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 69.

F Byrum, J., & Bingham, A. (2016). Improving analytics capabilities through crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 43.

F Dahlander L, Jeppesen L, & Piezunka H. (2018): How organizations manage crowds: Define, broadcast, attract and select. In: Managing Inter-organizational Collaborations-Process Views, edited by Jörg Sydow and Hans Berends. Berlin: 2018.


F King, A., & Lakhani, K. R. (2013). Using open innovation to identify the best ideas. MIT Sloan Management Review, 55(1), 41.

F Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2019): Idea rejected, tie formed: organizations’ feedback on crowdsourced ideas. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 503-530.

Searching for customer and employee ideas and market insights

F Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., & Salter, A. (2012). Managing unsolicited ideas for R&D. California Management Review, 54(3), 116-139.

F Füller, J. (2010). Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California Management review, 52(2), 98-122.

F Gouillart, F., & Billings, D. (2013). Community-powered problem solving. Harvard Business Review, 91(4), 70-7.

F Hofstetter, R., Suleiman, A., & Herrmann, A. (2017). Rethinking Crowdsourcing. Harvard Business Review, 79(5), 19-22.

F Kohler, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing-based business models: How to create and capture value. California Management Review, 57(4), 63-84.

F Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Kesebi, L., & Looram, S. (2017). Developing innovative solutions through internal crowdsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 73.

F Ogawa, S., & Piller, F. T. (2006). Reducing the risks of new product development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 65-72.

F Whelan, E., Parise, S., De Valk, J., & Aalbers, R. (2011). Creating employee networks that deliver open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1), 37.


Further reading on OIAs

F Bakici, T.; Almirall, E. & Wareham, J. (2010). The underlying mechanisms of open innovation intermediaries. ESADE Business School Research Paper No. 237 (SSRN, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2141908)

F Bingham, A. & Spradlin, D. (2011). The Open Innovation Marketplace. FT Press.

F Blohm, I., Zogaj, S., Bretschneider, U., & Leimeister, J. M. (2018). How to manage crowdsourcing platforms effectively?. California Management Review, 60(2), 122-149.

F Boudreau, K. J., & K. R. Lakhani. (2013): Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Business Review, 91 (4): 60–69.

F Kohler, T. (2018). How to scale crowdsourcing platforms. California Management Review, 60(2), 98-121.

F Mortara, L. (2010). The role of intermediaries. Center for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing.

F Nambisan, S. & Sawhney, M. (2007): A Buyer’s Guide to the Innovation Bazaar. Harvard Business Review, June, 109–118.

F Spigit, Inc. (2018). The 2018 state of crowdsourced innovation report. 1-27.

F Spradlin, D. (2012). Are you solving the right problems? Harvard Business Review, Sep, 85–93.

F Weiss, Jean (2018). Co-creating the future of work: State of Crowdsourcing Report. Open Assembly Quarterly, Fall 2018: 1-32.

T H E T H I R D O I A M A R K E T S U R V E Y


03

69THE THIRD OIA MARKET SURvEy

The third OIA market survey: facilitating collaborations in open innovation ecosystems

M E C H A N I S M S O F O P E N I N N O VAT I O N A N D C O R R E S P O N D I N G S E R V I C E S O F O I A S

70 THE THIRD OIA MARKET SURVEY

The search activity can be distinguished by two approaches:

direct vs. delegated search.

Deciding for a search type requires also making a decision regarding the preferred degree of openness and level of involvement by the innovating company.

Our research shows that the type of search influences the effort that is needed to coordinate all participants to achieve the project objectives.

Relevant factors to pick one of the two search forms are, for example:

5 the completeness of the problem specification,

5 the granularity of the problem,

5 the ability formulate clear performance criteria

5 or the credibility (signaling power) of the problem owner

Innovative search: a core activity to find new knowledge

Seeker searches for solutions/knowledge provided by solvers

DIRECT (search)

Using dedicated search approaches(and experiences) to find desired

pieces of knowledge (technologies)

FOCUS: knwoledge stock

Expand the breadth and depth of your search, i. e. the number of search channels and depth of use per channel (supplier, customer, university,

technology provider, ...)

DELEGATED (search) / "Broadcasting"

Open call / announcement of a "task" to an undefined large network of potential contributors

who sell-select whether to contribute

FOCUS: People (organizations)

Expand the network of potential external actors: without making concrete assumptions about the

input source

DETERMINE OPENNESS

71THE THIRD OIA MARKET SURVEY

The offering of an OIA consists of three components: its methodological approach to identify the external input, complementary consulting services, and dedicated it solutions.

1. Methodological approach is utilized to bridge between need of a client and external knowledge sources

2. Consulting services can be differentiated in (1) project-related consulting to solve a concrete innovation problem if a client and/or (2) providing general open innovation expertise to support clients in building their open innovation capability

3. IT Solutions offered by OIAs can be differentiated in (1) customization of a OI software for a client (e. g. an internal ideation platform), (2) web-services used for technical search or matching of problems to solutions; and (3) offering individual software development for clients (e. g., developing a dedicated crowdsourcing platform)

Relative complementary OIA services

Note: Multiple answers were possible. The service package effects the total price. See chapter on “project characteristics”

SEARCH 54.3 %

CONTESTS 72.5 %

IT Solutions

Consulting service

72 THE THIRD OIA MARKET SURvEy

Categorization of OIAs according to their complementing service offer

--- End of Preview ---

For access to the full version of the market report,please head to http://study.open-innovation.com


PA R T I C I PA N T P O O L C O M P O S I T I O N , R E C R U I T M E N T A N D C O L L A B O R AT I O N W I T H P R O J E C T PA R T I C I PA N T S


OIAs establish new connections for their clients with previously “unknown” external actors by providing access to their participant pools (“communities”)

OIAs enable their clients to bridge their structural network gaps when it comes down to creating newknowledge, finding solutions to existing problems, oreven discovering entire new technologies.

The size and characteristics of OIA communities vary andneed to be taken into consideration when selecting anOIA.

The following parameter differentiate various communities:

1. Overall size of community: The number of external actors potentially available to be recruited for aclient project

2. Size of project communities: Typical number ofexternal actors participating in a particular clientproject

3. Disciplinary background (number of industries ortechnical disciplines covered), level of expertise (experience), and (geographic) diversity of themembers of the participant pool

84 THE THIRD OIA MARKET SURVEY

OIAs differ in the size of their pool of potential participants (“communities”) available for a client project.

Data reveals a broad range regarding the community size.

in 8 community membersMax 10,000,000 community members

Community size by members (in %)

The average size of the involved community comprises 16,500 members.

TOP 15 Community size *

1 IDEXLAB

2 Presans

3 Agorize

4 innosabi GmbH

5 Deutscher Technologiedienst GmbH

6 InnoCentive, Inc.

7 CrowdWorx

8 Innoget

9 ideaken

10 jovoto GmbH

11 Squadhelp.com

12 Dialego AG

13 Innolytics GmbH

14 ennomotive

15 ATIZO 360° GmbH

* Only OIAs providing this information are listed.

12.5 %

18.8 %

21.9 %

46.9 %

> 1 Mio participants

100,000 – 1,000,000 participants

10,000 – 100,000 participants

< 10,000 participants




FA C T S A N D F I G U R E S O F T H E O I A B U S I N E S S

1. Peak: 2000 (+6.5 %) 2. Peak: 2006-2012 (+52 %)


In the last five years, the market for open innovation stagnates in growth

The growth of the OIA market started around the year 2000, and then grew continuously between 2006 and 2012.

Since 2013, we still observe growth of the OIA, but at smaller levels, signaling that the plateau of the OIA market may be reached soon.

Open innovation was first conceptualized as a term in 2001. then It took nearly six years untilthe idea of open innovation spread more widely into practice and produced tangible outputs.In the year 2006, first success stories on open innovation (like P&G, Dell) were published, starting a strong movement. Today, open innovation is no hype any longer, but a stable tool in theinnovation toolset of many companies.

Founding year (cumulative in %)

19001908

19421959

19691979

19891991

19981999

20002001

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


For access to the full version of the market report,

please head to http://study.open-innovation.com

O I A C O M P A N Y P R O F I L E S


04

115OIA COMPANY PROFILES

OIA company profiles

Below, you find the profiles of each individual OIA included in this third edition of our market study. But before, wewant to provide you some guidance how to get a quickoverview over the OIAs that suit your project objectives.

Originally, the central question when selecting an OIA hasbeen, What kind of information you want to acquire?

5 Information on customer and market needs(market or need information), i. e. information aboutpreferences, needs, desires, satisfaction, motives, etc. of customers and users in a specific product orservice domain.

5 Information on (technological) solution possibilities(technological or solution solution), i. e. information about how to address a specific technical task.

In the past editions, our main structure of the OIAs followed indeed this differentiation. However, during ourresearch for the current edition we realized that the typeof information required is not any longer differentiating the intermediaries. Today, most OIAs are active inboth domains, offering services to acquire information about customer needs and about technical solutionopportunities.

Hence, we recommend two other questions to structure your selection of the right OIA and screen especially the OIAsin the corresponding quadrant of the matrix in table 2:

Q 1: What is your assumption about the sources of therequired information?

A 1a: In the case you know who potentially cancontribute to your innovation challenge; e. g. you know the domain of expertise required, know the key search terms; select OIAs offering aDirect Search approach (finding desired pieces ofknowledge or technologies).

A 1b: In the case you know a heterogeneous and large group can contribute to your innovation challenge;e. g. you want to target "unobvious" others; select OIAs offering a Delegated Search approach (crowdsourcing a task to an undefined large network of potential contributors who selfselect whether to contribute).

Q 2: How do you want to organize your OI project, i. e. how much do you want to become involved?

A 2a: We prefer Make. We want to build up our own OIcapability and run the OI methods on our own.In this case, select OIAs offering dedicated software solutions.

A 2b: We prefer Buy (Outsourcing). We like it lean andhence want to cooperate with experts from theintermediary who run the OI methods for us. In thiscase, select OIAs running projects on your behalf.

Pre-structuring your search for the right OIA




Refl ecting the offered service ranked by main business area

PriceThese symbols refl ect either the OIA specifi c price-category for mainservices or the industry-average for the specifi c service.The symbols equal the following monetary scope per project:$ 1,000 – 20,000$$ 20,000 – 40,000$$$ 40,000 – 60,000$$$$ 60,000 +

DurationThese symbols refl ect either the OIA specifi c duration-category for mainservices or the industry-average for the specifi c service.The symbols equal the following time spans per project:

\̀̀\̀ 1 – 4 months

\̀̀\̀\̀̀\̀ 5 – 8 months

\̀̀\̀\̀ ̀\ ̀\̀̀\̀ 9 – 12 months

Info typeThis classifi cation shall help solution seeking fi rms to select suitable OImethods by categorizing the information type that is usually attained by the respective method. Solution information refers to gaining external (technical) knowledge to solve a specifi c problem, whereas Needinformation refers to gaining market insights about customer needs. Process information refers to managing the (open) innovation process with the help of consulting or software means.

All OIAs are presented in a similar structure. Only profi les that show the OIA 2020 vignette have been verifi ed recently by the OIA. All other profi le information is based on our own research andinterpretation of public information about a particular OIA. This is how to read the profi les:

How to read the OIA profiles

Client profi le

Government

SME MNC

Academia

Value proposition:This short statement shall briefl y convey the OIA's value proposition in a nutshell.

URL

phone number

contact [email protected]

addresscountry

Company Name (year of foundation)

Main Service Ranking – EXEMPLARY Info type Price Duration

1 IT solutionTechnical solution contests Solution $ \̀̀\̀\̀̀\̀

Ideation/Co-creation Solution $ \̀̀\̀\̀̀\̀

2 Contest Creativity workshops Need $$ \̀̀\̀

3 ConsultingPoint solutions, Tech search, Software development

Process $$$ \̀̀\̀

Industry profi le

Agriculture

Automotive

Building industry

Chemical & Pharma

Engineering

(Tele)Communication/IT

(Consumer)Electronics

Finance

Health

Wiki text: Brief, non-commercial description of the OIA business model and openinnovation activities, explaining objectives, unique methods or reference clients. Thedescription might be edited in order to fi t wiki style.

green color. It signals the OIA's experience with green color. It signals the OIA's experience with green color. It signals the OIA's experience with green color. It signals the OIA's experience with green color. It signals the OIA's experience with projects in specifi c geographical locations.projects in specifi c geographical locations.

Company Logo


OIA profiles are listed in alphabetical order. For a better navigation and to identify specific OIAs fitting to your information demand or networking requirement, refer to the tables presented in this chapter before.

OIAs index

Client profi le

Government

SME MNC

Academia

130 OIA COMPANY PROFILES

Value proposition:100%Open helps organisations to create new products and services by connecting themto people, ideas and technologies throughout the world.

www.100open.com

+44-203 889 5560

Roland [email protected]

18 Finsbury Square London EC2A 1AHUnited Kingdom

100%Open (founded 2010)

Main Service Ranking Info type Price Duration

1 Consulting Product/service or business model design Process $ \̀̀\̀

2 IT solution Customer-centric point solutions Solution $$ \̀̀\̀

3 Workshop Creativity workshops Need $ \̀̀\̀

Industry profi le

Agriculture

Automotive

Building industry

Chemical & Pharma

Engineering

(Tele)Communication/IT

(Consumer)Electronics

Finance

Health

100%Open is an open innovation agency that combines expertise, networks andcollaboration tools to produce successful new products and services. They combine business acumen and cross-sector experience with the hands-on practice ofimplementing open innovation by connecting organizations to people, ideas andtechnologies.



The Third RWTH Open InnovationAccelerator Survey

The Market for Open Innovation:

Collaborating in Open Ecosystems for Innovation

A market study of intermediaries, brokers, platforms

and facilitators helping organizations to profit from

open innovation and customer co-creation

study.open-innovation.com

THE

THIR

D RW

TH O

PEN

INNO

VATI

ON A

CCEL

ERAT

OR S

URVE

Y

ISBN 978-0-359-95329-5

the third rwth open innovation …...software support, consultancy, or executive education enhance...

Documents