Open Innovation insights|About open innovation

An interview of David Ràfols, CEO of Innoget in “Transferencia Magazine (TM)”.
Written by Javier González Sabater, Friday, 20 November 2009 01:00

We chatted via email with David Ràfols, founder and alma mater of Innoget, a website designed to act as virtual intermediary on innovation and technology transfer. Despite its recent launching to the market, Innoget surely will take part in the most relevant contracts of technology transfer between universities and businesses both in Spain and other countries.

David Ràfols is an entrepreneur passionate by intermediation who knows the benefits of university research as well as innovation needs in companies. He exchanges with Transferencia Magazine his views on the present and future for the open innovation and knowledge transfer.

We could say that Innoget is an open innovation intermediary, but what are the main objectives of this initiative?

If we understand open innovation as the intentional use of inflows and outflows of knowledge with the aim of accelerating internal innovation, as stated by Chesbrough -creator of the term Open Innovation-, the questions we should ask are: how can companies get external knowledge easily, quickly and globally? And how can the scientific community spread the knowledge it generates?

The answer is virtual innovation intermediaries. I would dare to say that without them we would not be talking about Open Innovation with the insistence with which we are doing. And, in particular I’m talking about InnoCentive, the spearhead of this movement, which has been followed by others, including Innoget. Innoget attempts to close the gap in Spain in regard to the virtual mediation for technology transfer.

How is it being the response from businesses and researchers forehead to Innoget?

Amazing. From day one many of the companies we approached saw the initiative as a very interesting tool. That gave us strength to go on developing our project until the launch of Innoget.

From the researchers From day one many companies saw Innoget as a very interesting toolpoint of view it is a different situation. On the one hand we have a very strong base of researchers who are supporting us through their participation in Innoget. But in the practice only a small proportion of Spanish researchers -which I would not quantify- are motivated by the fact of targeting their research or a part of it to the business world.

This is a reality that we will not change despite the many brokerage platforms that exist. That point must be addressed not too far by doing deep changes in research organizations, particularly in their governance and in the criteria for work recognition in researchers. Competitiveness of our country is at stake. In the last few months we are seeing great interest from the scientific community in other countries like USA, England or Germany on Innoget. This shows that these countries have already changed this reality or are in the process of it, and in any case clearly indicates that is the way forward.

Although Innoget is a young company, what are the main advances since the first version of Innoget called Connectainnova?

Innoget is an evolution of Conectainnova. We proposed Conectainnova as a first version brokerage platform to convince us that there really was a real need for Web 2.0 tools in the world of innovation and technology transfer. Aspects such as platform scalability, geographical coverage or services we offer are some of the most important features that did not exist on Conectainnova.

You are pioneers in using Internet social media –so called Web 2.0 to spread your open innovation opportunities in Spain. Are they useful or still have some way to go?

I can only speak of Innoget, and I can actually say that the Innoget platform has been launched to be used by them. But much remains to be done, in the sense that our tool is still little known in Spain, Our goal is making Innoget a reference for technology transferespecially among academics and scientists. We are conducting various activities to reach the scientific community with the objective of making Innoget as a reference for technology transfer. The evolution of the platform (statistics of site visits, registered users, etc.) tells us that we are on the right way and that very soon we will get our goal.

How did the idea of going from employee to entrepreneur, and what about the entrepreneur experience in the world of science and technology?

I have always been in environments related to innovation and technology. First at the University where I did my PhD studies with a grant on university-industry collaboration. After at the business world in R & D departments. And just before launching the venture in Innoget, in the development agency Cidem -now Acció10 in its network of technology consultants.

This experience gave me an overview of innovation and technology transfer from its three principal axes (university – enterprise – public administration). And I understand why sometimes this scheme fails. From this moment to take the decision to start Innoget several issues were important. But I would specially highlight the faith of whole Innoget team on an idea that eventually is demonstrating to have its space in the world of innovation.

Innoget has recently established an agreement with an U.S. company to enter in foreign markets. Do you think it is necessary to be global when dealing with innovation and knowledge?

For us it was big news. Our motto is Growth through Open Innovation This collaboration opens up opportunities in other markets because the work done in Innoget can be automatically replied in other countries through better positioned platforms. The agreement allows us to be present in the U.S. and Japan. And in the coming weeks we will close a similar deal with another platform to strengthen the English market, in particular in United Kingdom, Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand. In addition, our motto is “Growth through Open Innovation”, then how we will not be open in our business and work with platforms similar to ours?

Read all the article in “Transferencia Magazine (TM)”.

Implementing an open innovation strategy presents many challenges for management. IfM’s research in this area is focused on helping companies understand and overcome these challenges.

Cambridge University’s Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) report, “How to implement open innovation: lessons from studying large multinational companies” (September 2009) is the result of a two-year study of some of more than 30 major companies from a variety of sectors and can be downloaded from the IfM’s website :

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/teg/openinnovation.html

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

La implantación de una estrategia de innovación abierta presenta muchos retos a la dirección de una empresa. La investigación del IfM en esta área está centrada en ayudar a las empresas a comprender y superar estos retos.

El Cambridge University’s Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) ha realizado un nuevo artículo, “Cómo implantar la innovación abierta: lecciones de estudio de las grandes multinacionales” (Septiembre 2009) que es el resultado de un estudio de dos años sobre algunas de las 30 empresas más grandes de distintos sectores y que se puede descargar desde la página del IfM:

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/ctm/teg/openinnovation.html

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

Moving from a closed innovation model to an open innovation model involves organizational changes at human resources level, operations, politics and culture. An article on the openinnovator website where Rob Veldt approaches the main points on how to make use of open innovation in your company in an effective way.

http://www.openinnovators.net/manage-implementation-of-open-innovation-strategy/

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

Pasar de un modelo de innovación cerrada a un modelo de innovación abierta implica cambios organizacionales al nivel de personas, operaciones, política y cultura. Un artículo de la Web openinnovator donde Rob Veldt aborda las grandes líneas para hacer un uso eficaz de la innovación abierta en su empresa.

http://www.openinnovators.net/manage-implementation-of-open-innovation-strategy/

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…

Cristian Hernandez-Cuevas is a member of the Investment Committee of Aurus Bios Venture Capital Fund.
Business Manager of Science Foundation for Life (www.cienciavida.cl). Between 2005 and 2007 served as Development Manager of Summit PLC, a biotechnology company listed on the London Stock Exchange and a global leader in chemical genomics and carbohydrate chemistry.

Previously, he served as an independent consultant to explore potential investment opportunities for Cambridge Enterprise Venture Capital Ltd and Lumora Ltd (England). He is a member of the Leaders Network of Chile, Section Editor of the Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, and founder and CEO of  www.RedCiencia.org . Christian has a Master’s in Bioscience Enterprise at the University of Cambridge (2003) and Engineer in Molecular Biotechnology at the University of Chile.

Good Morning Mr. Cristian Hernández-Cuevas

 1. What do you think about open innovation? What aspects of Open Innovation would you highlight in connection with the classical model of innovation management, also known as closed innovation?

Open Innovation is a very persuasive concept, it can become a source of competitiveness for slow-moving organizations where it is frequent to see how innovative projects that are designed internally or inspired by external ideas, die because of lack of resources, lack of internal drive or because they do not fit with the evaluation criteria and project development culture that has been established as “the way we do things here” in the organization. Through an open innovation model a company can bring onboard more mature projects or ideas and take them to market through its established distribution channels. It can also incorporate new ideas, additional sources of capital, or it can provide an outlet for ideas, prototypes, technologies, licenses or even companies that do not fit well with the structure or objectives of the traditional project development pipeline within the organization. To sum up, open innovation allows more flexibility, which ultimately means that one can bet on different types of innovations without having to be forced to choose only to innovations that fit with the rigid structure required by the closed innovation model.

2.  Open innovation is strongly being introduced in academia and the business world. Do you think that the future of knowledge transfer between businesses and research institutions is based in open innovation?

The most important knowledge transfer between Academia and Business remains the transfer of people who are educated at the university, which is then used in the industrial sector. A national or a country model of open innovation only exemplifies the ways to channel knowledge transfer. Some people are going to finish school and seek employment in industry straight away, others will start up a company and license out a technology from a university, the most knowledge driven professionals may go back to academia to teach what they have learnt. I think the future is based in highlighting the value added that academy can bring to the productive sector and vice-versa, the channels and models of interaction will appear in a natural way and will probably evolve in conjunction with the pace of new technological advances.

3. Do you think that researchers, universities and research organizations, are responding adequately to knowledge transfer through open innovation using the Internet and Web 2.0?

I believe the vast majority are just starting to get familiar with Web 2.0 tools. They are gradually incorporating them into its working atmosphere, as was the case of email, a tool that is commonly used today but that was not massively available 50 years ago. I have no doubt that in the future we will use Web 2.0 features for web-based collaborative work similar to those we currently use for recreation, in Facebook, for example. The latest Google’s development (Google Wave) confirms this point.

4.  In your opinion, what aspects could be improved to further enhance this open culture in knowledge generation centers?

A key thing is to use or develop tools and services that deliver direct benefits to users of open innovation systems. In my experience, the benefits most valued in communities where users volunteer their time and work are: being part of something larger and transcendent, earning recognition or money, accessing to privileged information or information that is difficult to get, making good use of their skills, meeting other people with similar interests and advancing or accelerating their careers. Close relationships, trust and respect are the foundation elements of a sound culture for an open innovation environment; any technology or service that helps in this way will have a significant impact.

5. What role virtual intermediary/ brokerage platforms that are emerging in recent years should play? Do you think the scientific community is aware of the existence of these new tools that facilitate knowledge transfer between organizations? In your opinion, what mechanisms or pathways should be explored to make them known among researchers of universities and research centers?

Intermediary/ Brokerage platforms are doing a great job in helping you keep in touch with your colleagues or acquaintances. They are also being used to find researchers with whom contact has been lost. Especially for young researchers these intermediary platforms are considered very intuitive and familiar tools. The best way to make them known is through the users themselves, they are the ones that spread the word recommending these tools to their colleagues and friends. A good marketing campaign can help promote a platform more efficiently. One thing that we know it works well is to have face-to-face meetings among the participants of a network/community. The more concrete the interaction, the stronger the links/trust among the users and therefore, the better the results.

Read all the interview

DDXTCWMC275H

 
Challenges :  

 
Challenge: Ferrites with different size and different curie temperatures
Work sector : Food & drink
Deadline: 2010-11-15
      Country : Spain

Stem cell expansion methods and compositions.
Work sector: Biotechnology
Deadline: 2010-06-30
      Country : Spain

IBox-in :
Laboratorios Ordesa S.L
Industrial sector : Biotechnology
Genetrix promotes new companies by contributing financial support and specialised management services
Visit IBox-in
 

 
IBox-out :

  

Enantia
Enantia has a short but successful history. enantia is an independent private company, founded in 2003 as a spin-off from a research group of the university of barcelona devoted to enantioselective synthesis and asymmetric catalysis.
Visit IBox-out

IDOKI SCF TECHNOLOGIES, S.L.
Idoki created in 2006. our main activity is to research and develop new active principles using supercritical extraction technology,
Visit IBox-out

Ingeniatrics Tecnologías
With headquarters in sevilla, ingeniatrics is a technological based company that was founded on 2001. ingeniatrics technology platform is mainly oriented to generation of micro particles, micro jets, micro foams, etc.,
Visit IBox-out

CAPSULAE
Industrial sector : Services.
Capsulae is an expert encapsulation technology company offering a complete product development service for its partners, including: – product design; – encapsulation problem solving; – process development & scale up.
Visit IBox-out

GCM Communications Technology
Industrial sector : Communications.
Gcm communications technology is a technological intellectual property company based in spain. it develops its proprietary gcm/otdm technology to support a wide range of markets and applications.
Visit IBox-out

siRNAsense AS
Industrial sector : Pharmaceuticals.
Sirnasense’s staff has had a deep interest in the potential of sirna since the technology’s early days. high class research with basis in ribozymes and antisense is brought forward to the rna interference field.Visit IBox-out
Visit IBox-out

Brain Dynamics
Industrial sector : Biotechnology.
Brain dynamics is an spin-off from the university of malaga created by researchers from six research groups focused on the study of the human brain from a multidisciplinary point of view: neurophysiology, neuroanatomy, neurology, neurosurgery, psicobiology and informatics (neural networks, genetic…
Visit IBox-out

ChiraTecnics
Industrial sector : Pharmaceuticals.
Chiratecnics is a unique specialist company that provides cutting edge solutions in the area of chiral technology for the pharmaceutical industry. it provides high quality, low cost chiral ligands and building blocks.
Visit IBox-out

DRO BIOSYSTEMS S.L.
Industrial sector : Biotechnology.
Dro biosystems s.l. is engaged in the development of improved biotherapy treatments by providing the industry and research groups with products and services that support the advance of biotherapy.
Visit IBox-out

Kanazawa University TLO
Industrial sector : Biotechnology.
We organized kutlo-nitt (kanazawa university tlo-nihonkai innovation technology transfer) in 2008 among 10 universities and 2 tlos located on the north-western coast of japan adjacent to the sea of japan for the purpose of licensing technology to industries from academia.
Visit IBox-out

PANRICO SLU
We are a leading innovation in the iberian peninsula with over 10 factories distributed throughout the territory. increasingly, we demand more innovation and creativity to develop products that are the favorites of consumers (in pleasure, convenience and health) and are difficult to copy.
Visit IBox-in

Aitor Bediaga is a computer engineer from the Universidad de Deusto and MBA from Mondragon Unibertsitatea. At present he is professor and investigator at Mondragon Unibertsitatea and is involved in research projects related to open innovation, social networks and enterprise 2.0

The term Open Innovation was coined several years ago but only in the last two years it seems to become popular among those responsible for innovation within leading organizations. Open innovation is a relatively new term although it involves certain aspects that are not . The present economic, social and technological circumstances are generating a paradigm shift at the innovation systems. Some of the main facts responsible for the said change are:

Globalization. In a world where globalization is a fact and our competitors threaten us from across the borders with hard to beat competitive advantages, organizations need to seek excellence to stay in the market. The world has become global and competitors are able to reach any domestic market as fast as local organizations. But the good news is that there is a bigger number of potential customers. Customers can be anywhere in the world and new technology and low cost air companies have made them easily reachable. Global production, new markets such as India and China and outsourcing practices become drivers of global innovation. In brief, organizations will have to implement a  global innovation policy which apart from being global will implicate distributed collaborative work.

Loss of competitiveness. Organizations have lost the important competitive advantages provided by the abundance of information. Information is not power anymore. According to Irving Wladawsky-Berger, IBM Vice President of Technology and Strategy: This emerging era is characterized by the collaborative innovation of many people working in gifted communitites, just as innovation in the industrial era was characterized by individual genius.

Therefore companies need to maintain their competitive advantages not only via their  natural allies such as technological organizations, universities and so on but relaying on their own competitors, customers and employees.

Democratization of the technologies. It is true that developed countries adopt new technologies increasingly fast but in developing countries adoption rate is extremely high too. Most homes have a computer and internet access. Some young users consider computers a home appliance, essential for life, such as a television set, the fridge or the microwave. But it is not the computer only, any individual fond of photography, astrology or any other activity has enough technology available to become an amateur carrying out professional activities.

More demanding users. Users are not simple consumers with a passive behavior towards the product. They have adopted a much active attitude. In fact they have party assumed the producer role. There is a new term –prosumer- to describe those producing goods, services or experiences for their own use and pleasure, before selling or exchanging them. According to Charles Leadbeather “From astronomy to activism, from surfing to saving lives, Pro-Ams – people pursuing amateur activities to professional standards – are an increasingly important part of our society and economy. For Pro-Ams, leisure is not passive consumerism but active and participatory, it involves the deployment of publicly accredited knowledge and skills, often built up over a long career, which has involved sacrifices and frustrations.”

Above facts imply the idea that the organizations dealing with systems of innovation  have to adapt to the new era. The individual efforts done by companies in order to innovate have to disappear and give way to a more open and permeable innovation method where collaboration and sharing with external organizations and individuals are the key words.

One of the first investigators to coin the term open innovation was Henry Chesbrough, executive director of the Center for Open Innovation at the University of California, Bekerley. Professor Chesbrough sustains that R&D monolithic models retrain the flow of intellectual capital into organizations, limiting the chances for innovation. According to Chesbrough’s point of view on open innovation, there is a global innovation market where the innovation is a pure commodity that can be bought, sold, licensed, lent and/or reinvested.
Some investigators maintain different opinions on the open innovation concept and the functional areas it covers. OBEA, research group of Mondragon Unibertsitatea, has arranged the different views in four scenarios.

Intraorganizational open innovation. In this scenario the innovation process is opened to all the members of the organization i.e. any worker can participate in it. This is the scenario where everybody can participate in the innovation process. Suggestions boxes and pools of ideas are example of practices used to develop the above described policy but new and more efficient tools have to be available.

This setting originates after considering the incoherence of having an organization open to the exterior but closed to internal collaboration. In this scenario is important to identify the participation channels as well as the incentives for the employees transferring  their knowledge to the organization.

Interorganizational open innovation. This scenario have been examined in depth by several experts and among them Henry Chesbrough. It involves accepting the collaboration of external agents such as suppliers, advisers, universities, technology centers and even competitors.

According to Chesbrough and Schwartz the collaboration in the development of products or services is one of the main issues in the open innovation models. The use of external partners produce business models that reduce the R&D budget, improve the innovation results and open new markets.

When shifting an organization to this scenario, new collaboration and co-creation practices have to be employed. That means a certain loss of control since more than one organization takes part in the process and therefore decisions will have to be made by the different agents participating in the creation of the product or service.

User Innovation.  This is a kind of collaborative innovation where users have a capital role. Different investigators such as Eric von Hippel and Charles Leadbeater conclude that users are one of the chief innovation sources and therefore it seems logical to define scenarios where the procedure for users and producers collaboration and co-creation is defined.

Users innovation is not generated through every single user but only via the innovative user who Eric von Hippel calls lead user. When these lead users are allowed to participate in the processes of innovation and co-creation  of products and services, the organizations can improve their development pace and reduce costs associated to development efficiently.

The shift allows organizations to learn from users and share experiences in the process of  creating a product or service that meets better the users’ requirements. In 1776, the prominent economist Adam Smith pointed out that many of the machines used in the manufacturing industry had been invented by common people. Some years later, Charles Bagage acknowledged the capability of the workers to  innovate and create new tools or to simplify industrial processes.

The following responses make clear the growing importance of  innovation generated by users

• Organizations are developing products based on contents generated by users. Many products and systems emerge as a direct result of users contributions and sharing of their own contents.
• Organizations make toolkits available to users so that they innovate
• Organizations are disclosing the architecture of products to  users. This strategy has been proved to be really effective in the case of the most sophisticated users innovation processes
• Organizations are hiring lead users to involve them in the development of new products. Users inform of new developments or test new products, take part of users communities or become beta-testers of new products.

User innovation allows the incorporation into the organization of the innovation capacity  held by the users of those products and services generated by the organization. Therefore one of the main benefits is to take advantage of the users talent and increase the social capital of the organization. This approach to users allows a more efficient identification of the market needs and co-create  with the user and eventually minimize the risk of commercializing new products. But it is not easy for users to get involved in the organization processes. There are many difficulties to attract and interest users in the co-creation course and to establish a mechanism which preserves the products and services quality level.

Collective innovation. Under the idea of collective innovation lays the concept of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is an intelligence form that emerges from the collaboration and  association of many individuals. George Pór defined the collective intelligence  as “the capacity of human communities to evolve towards higher order complexity and harmony, through such innovation mechanisms as differentiation and integration, competition and collaboration” Collective innovation allows the participation of anyone in the organizational innovation process. In this case the organization has to consider issues such as the lead users governance, support to  of users collaboration, etc. Writer Jeff Howe and Mark Robinson editor of the magazine Wired have identify this scenario as crowdsoursing and defined it as “the intend to substitute the selective contracts and specific formation of work forces  by means of massive participation of volunteers and the application of auto-organization principles.

As an example of application of the collective intelligence, we point out two companies: Threadless and iStockphoto. The first one, Threadless, was establish by Jake Nickell and Jacob DeHart who met in a community of T-shirts designers. Both quit university and decided to host a contest where the jury would be the general publish who would vote via the Internet. The idea was such a success that they decided to maintain the website and encourage the users to post their designs. Their promise was to print the weekly winning t-shirt and sell it via Internet.

Above described scenarios make clear the need of a new policy which allows capturing different innovation sources located out of the organization and this is made by opening the organization to these external innovation sources. Each organization will have to decide on the scenario they prefer depending upon the market sector they belong to, their resistance to changes, the people involved and their needs.

We, from the research group OBEA, would like to study in depth each possible scenario, examine the methods for the organizations to shift to any of the said scenarios and define the eventual benefits generated by them. Right now it is important to get moving, demolish the thick walls surrounding  the organizations as to let fresh air and light into them.

Aitor Bediaga es ingeniero informático por la Universidad de Deusto y MBA por la Universidad de Mondragon. Actualmente es profesor e investigador en la Universidad de Mondragon involucrado en proyectos de investigación sobre innovación abierta, web social y empresa 2.0

Hace varios años que se acuño el término innovación abierta, pero han sido estos dos últimos años cuando parece haber calado entre los responsables de innovación de las grandes organizaciones. La innovación abierta siendo un término relativamente nuevo, engloba ciertas características que no lo son. Los factores económicos, sociales y tecnológicos actuales están promoviendo el cambio de paradigma en los sistemas de innovación. A continuación enumeraremos algunos de los factores más importantes:

Globalización. En un mundo donde la globalización es ya un hecho y los competidores acechan desde más allá de las fronteras con unas ventajas competitivas difícilmente igualables, las organizaciones necesitan ser excelentes para poder seguir compitiendo. El mercado es el mundo, e irremediablemente, los competidores pueden acceder a al mercado local de otra organización casi tan rápido esta misma. La buena noticia, en cambio, es que la cartera de posibles nuevos clientes se ha incrementado. Los clientes pueden estar en cualquier lugar del mundo ya que gracias a diversos factores como la tecnología y las compañías aéreas de bajo coste el acceso a ellos se ha simplificado. La globalización de la producción, la apertura de los mercados como los de India y China por ejemplo y el incremento de la externalización provocan el aumento de la competencia y suponen una oportunidad para globalizar la innovación. Estamos hablando, por tanto, de que las organizaciones van a tener que pensar en disponer de un proceso global de innovación, el cual además de ser global sea distribuido y colaborativo.

Pérdida de competitividad. Las organizaciones han perdido las grandes ventajas competitivas que les ofrecía la abundancia de información. Esa información ya no es poder. Irving Wladawksy-Berger, vicepresidente de estrategias técnicas e innovación de IBM dice a este respecto: “Esta era emergente se caracteriza por la colaboración, en el ámbito de la innovación, entre muchas personas que trabajan en comunidades de gran talento, del mismo modo que en la era de la industrialización la innovación se caracterizo por el ingenio individual.” Las industrias necesitan por tanto mantener su ventaja competitiva a través de la colaboración con sus aliados naturales, centros tecnológicos, universidades, pero también con sus propios competidores, usuarios y trabajadores.

Democratización de las tecnologías. En los países desarrollados el nivel de adopción de nuevas tecnologías se incrementa rápidamente, pero es que en los países en vías de desarrollo el nivel de adopción es extremadamente elevado. Ya es común encontrar en cualquier casa un ordenador y una conexión a Internet. Además algunos jóvenes lo ven ya como un “electrodoméstico” más de la casa, indispensable en sus vidas, como lo es la televisión, el frigorífico o el microondas. Pero no solo el ordenador, cualquier persona apasionada de la fotografía, la astronomía o cualquier otra actividad tienen a su disposición la tecnología para ser un amateur realizando actividades de profesionales.

Usuarios más exigentes. Los usuarios han dejado de ser simples consumidores de productos donde su forma de actuar con respecto al producto era pasiva y han pasado a tener una actitud mucho más activa. Tan activa que podríamos decir que juegan también el rol de productores. Ha aparecido por tanto un nuevo concepto, el de “prosumidor”, para designar a quienes crean bienes, servicios o experiencias para propio uso o disfrute, antes que para venderlos o intercambiarlos. Según Charles Leadbeater “va a haber más profesionales-amateurs (pro-am) en diferentes facetas de la vida iban a marcar una importante influencia en la sociedad: socialmente, políticamente y económicamente. Un pro-am persigue una actividad como un amateur, principalmente por el amor a esta, pero marca un estándar profesional. Para los pro-ams, el placer no es consumismo pasivo sino activo y participativo; involucra el despliegue de conocimiento y habilidades reconocidas públicamente, a menudo construida a través una larga carrera, lo cual implicó sacrificios y frustraciones.”

Estos factores hacen presagiar que es necesario adaptar los sistemas de innovación organizacionales a los nuevos tiempos. De esta forma, los esfuerzos individuales de las organizaciones por ser las más innovadoras deberían quedarse atrás para dar la bienvenida a un sistema de innovación más abierto y permeable a colaborar y compartir con personas y organizaciones del exterior.
Uno de los primeros investigadores que acuñó el término innovación abierta fue Henry Chesbrough, director ejecutivo del Centro de Open Innovation de la Universidad de California-Berkeley. El profesor Chesbrough mantiene que los modelos monolíticos de I+D restringen el flujo del capital intelectual de la organización, limitando las oportunidades para innovar. Según la visión de Chesbrough sobre la innovación abierta es que existe de un mercado global de innovación, donde la innovación misma es una commodity que puede ser comprada, vendida, licenciada, prestada y/o reinvertida.
Diversos investigadores mantienen diferentes perspectivas sobre qué es exactamente la innovación abierta y qué áreas funcionales de la empresa abarca. Desde el grupo de investigación OBEA de Mondragon Unibertsitatea hemos conseguido unificar todas esas diferentes perspectivas en cuatro escenarios.

Innovación abierta intraorganizacional. En este escenario el proceso de innovación se abre hacia el interior de la organización abriendo la posibilidad de participación a todos los trabajadores. Se trata de un escenario donde todas las personas pueden participar en el proceso de innovación. Ya se han venido aplicando prácticas que favorezcan este escenario como son el buzón de sugerencias o la bolsa de nuevas ideas. Pero las prácticas deben ser aún mucho más efectivas.

Este escenario surge de la reflexión sobre la incoherencia de tener una organización abierta al exterior pero cerrada internamente. En este escenario es interesante identificar los cauces de participación así como incentivos para que las personas aporten sus conocimientos a la organización.

Innovación abierta interorganizacional. Este escenario está siendo estudiado profundamente por diversos investigadores, entre ellos Henry Chesbrough. Se trata de una apertura para la colaboración entre agentes externos a la organización como proveedores, aliados, universidades, centros tecnológicos y hasta los propios competidores.

Según Chesbrough y Schwartz la colaboración en el desarrollo de productos o servicios es uno de los temas que más importancia tiene en los modelos de innovación abierta. El uso de partners externos puede crear modelos de negocio que reduzcan los presupuestos de I+D, aumenten los resultados de la innovación y descubran nuevos mercados.

A la hora de mover una organización hacia este escenario es imprescindible poner en marcha prácticas como la colaboración y co-creación. Esto significa una cierta pérdida de control, ya que no habrá una única organización que tome las decisiones sino que estas deberán ser consensuadas por todos los agentes que participan en la creación del producto o servicio.