Technical ReportPDF Available

S’engager dans l’Open Innovation - Fondations, démarches et grandes pratiques

Authors:

Abstract

Dans ce rapport qui s’appuie sur une revue de travaux récents portant sur l’Open Innovation (articles scientifiques, livres publiés et articles de conférences), nous cherchons à expliquer les grands principes de l’Open Innovation tels qu’ils sont analysés et décrits par le monde de la recherche académique. Aussi, nous commençons par présenter les trois grands piliers de cette littérature et ce qu’ils apportent de nouveau : le livre fondateur d’Henri Chesbrough et sa représentation de ce qu’est l’Open Innovation, la notion de capacité d’absorption d’une entreprise et la notion de lead-user. Puis, nous présentons les résultats de l’étude des entreprises qui se sont engagées dans des démarches d’ouverture de leur innovation et la majeure difficulté rencontrée par celles-ci : la barrière culturelle à franchir. Enfin, nous terminons par balayer les grandes familles de pratiques rencontrées dans l’Open Innovation en action : la recherche de savoirs externes, leur intégration en interne puis leur commercialisation. http://institutopeninnovation.fr/etudes/etude-s-engager-dans-l-open-innovation/
A preview of the PDF is not available
Technical Report
Ce livre blanc a pour objectif de capitaliser, transmettre et promouvoir l’expertise d’Altran dans le domaine de la conception d’espaces collaboratifs d’innovation (ECI). Il permet aux entreprises et notamment aux directeurs R&I de se positionner et d’affiner leurs décisions sur la création d’un tel lieu mais aussi de se repérer dans la jungle des exemples existants, faire les bons choix, se poser les bonnes questions, voire de choisir les bons prestataires pour un accompagnement. UNE VISION COMPLÈTE GRÂCE À UNE TRIPLE APPROCHE : - de chercheur en sciences de gestion (à travers la thèse et le travail doctoral de Karine Sacepe), - de lab manager opérationnel (Karine anime et coordonne les we.lab d’Altran au quotidien) - de consultant expert qui conçoit, met en œuvre et anime des espaces collaboratifs d’innovation au sein de grandes entreprises industrielles. Les analyses permettent de prendre du recul sur les pratiques actuelles en donnant des exemples concrets et retours d’expériences réels, des checks lists, des conseils opérationnels.
Book
Les entreprises ne peuvent plus compter uniquement sur leurs propres ressources pour mettre en oeuvre des stratégies d’innovation efficaces à l’ère de la mondialisation et de la transformation numérique. Les entreprises qui réussissent sont celles qui pratiquent l’Innovation Ouverte, l’innovation étant alors alimentée par des parties prenantes extérieures à l’entreprise (clients, fournisseurs, start-up, universités, laboratoires, centres de recherche, Etat, collectivités territoriales, etc.). L’innovation Ouverte permet aux entreprises de raccourcir le délai de mise sur le marché (« time to market ») et de développer de nouveaux produits, notamment de rupture, tout en mutualisant les risques ; elle conduit à renouveler plus rapidement les entreprises en multipliant les start-up qui pourront devenir des ETI, voire ultérieurement des grands groupes. L’Innovation Ouverte favorise tout particulièrement le panachage des modes d’innovation, c’est-à-dire la combinaison des innovations de produit, de procédé, de commercialisation et d’organisation. L’Allemagne réussit fort bien ce panachage qui est davantage créateur de valeur économique, ce qui lui confère un important avantage comparatif. Pour élaborer nos dix recommandations, le point de départ a été le constat, largement partagé dans les nombreux rapports sur le système d’innovation français, de nos trois faiblesses, à savoir l’insuffisance des ressources consacrées à la R&D, le mauvais positionnement du pays en matière d’innovation, comme « suiveur » et non comme « leader », ainsi qu’un faible renouvellement de nos entreprises. L’insuffisance du capital-risque ainsi qu’une commande publique trop peu orientée vers les PME contribuent à ces faiblesses. Nous avons retenu les bonnes pratiques mises en oeuvre par les entreprises ou par d’autres organismes qui nous paraissent exemplaires, susceptibles d’une large diffusion et bénéfiques au système d’innovation afin de remédier aux trois faiblesses françaises. Nos dix recommandations en sont déduites. Pour plus de créativité et d’innovation n° 1 Multiplier les espaces de rencontre et d’échanges ainsi que les FabLabs n° 2 S’appuyer sur les réseaux mondiaux d’Innovation Ouverte Pour plus de nouveaux produits n° 3 Transformer les pôles de compétitivité mondiaux en « usines à nouveaux produits » n° 4 Inciter les pôles de compétitivité, les SATT et les clusters à plus d’ouverture et de risque n° 5 Instaurer la commande de R&D publique en faveur de nouveaux produits Pour plus de start-up et de PME innovantes n° 6 Favoriser la création et l’accompagnement de start-up par les grands groupes et les ETI n° 7 Démultiplier le capital-risque par un choc fiscal et une nouvelle gouvernance Pour une commande privée et publique mieux orientée n° 8 Favoriser la commande privée et publique innovante aux PME et ETI n° 9 Mettre en oeuvre une démarche ambitieuse dans les grandes entreprises publiques n° 10 Développer l’expérimentation innovante avec les futurs utilisateurs Ces recommandations s’adressent aux nombreux acteurs de l’écosystème de l’innovation, aux entreprises et aux entrepreneurs, aux universités et aux grandes écoles, aux chercheurs, aux sociétés de capital-risque, aux business-angels mais aussi aux pouvoirs publics dont le rôle est de favoriser la dynamique vertueuse de cet écosystème, sans se substituer aux acteurs privés.
Article
Full-text available
Depuis la fin des Trente Glorieuses, la coopération interentreprises est un thème de plus en plus étudié par les chercheurs. Si jusqu’aux années 1980 la coopération entre une entreprise et une autre consistait avant tout à partager et/ou externaliser tout ou partie de sa production et de sa supply chain, c’est à partir de là que le nombre d’accords de coopération en Recherche & Développement a commencé à exploser. Et depuis une dizaine d’années, ces coopérations se sont encore accrues avec la création et la diffusion d’un « nouveau concept » : l’Open Innovation. Désormais, le modèle du laboratoire de R&D intégré verticalement à la structure commerciale n’est plus la seule voie d’innovation. Or du fait de la relative nouveauté de cette nouvelle manière d’innover, beaucoup de questions se posent encore pour les entreprises qui s’engagent dans cette voie. Au premier rang de ces questions il y a celles relatives à la confidentialité des informations échangées et au partage des fruits du projet d’innovation en coopération.
Book
Full-text available
Innovation is higher than ever on companies’ agenda. 62% of executives interviewed in a recent survey say their business strategy is “largely” or “totally” dependent on Innovation. In today’s globalized competitive environment, innovation has become the key criterion by which you can assess how good a company is and how good it is likely to be in the future. To give an example of this innovation play in the emblematic mobile phone industry, Apple, RIM and HTC, the three most innovative companies in the industry, capture more than 50% of the total profit pool with less than 10% of the industry’s volume because they are ahead with innovation. In today’s world, companies are required to innovate more and faster than ever before. § Innovate more not only to address more demanding and fastly changing customers but also to respond to the specific needs of emerging markets. ChotuKool, the $69 fridge and Nano, the $ 2,200 car are well known examples of the so-called “frugal innovation” challenge that major corporations are now facing in emerging markets. § Innovate faster to cope with products and services shorter life cycle and create new uncontested “Blue Ocean”1 market spaces. Apple only had 20 months with the highly successful mini Ipod before making the decision to replace it with the Nano Ipod. In this context, the concept of Open Innovation has attracted a lot of attention in both company board rooms and schools of management. Companies in all countries develop collaborations with other companies and individuals to get new ideas and to develop new products and services. They also let others exploit their unused ideas which in turn can become profitable ventures. The conjunction of academic recognition following Henry Chesbrough’s creation of the concept in 2003 and the benefits claimed by P&G with its Connect+DevelopSM program have made Open Innovation the new frontier for Innovation that no company can afford to ignore. Based on qualitative interviews and the latest academic thinking on the subject, Accenture and the Institute for Innovation and Competitiveness i7 created by ESCP Europe have tried to go beyond the buzzword and have investigated what actually lies behind this concept. They therefore studied 20 companies that are actively leveraging Open Innovation to boost their overall innovation performance. The sample was selected from among large international companies for whom innovation is a priority and which have extensively communicated on their Open Innovation practices for several years. The starting point of this research was to question whether Open Innovation is really a new business praxis, a real innovation, or “old wine in a new bottle” that companies have been practicing for decades without calling it that. To answer this question, we analyzed what Outside-In Open Innovation changes in the way companies build and manage external has on innovation performance. partnerships, organize and stimulate innovation internally and what impact it
Chapter
Full-text available
6.1 INTRODUCTION Firms are increasingly adopting open innovation strategies in their innova-tion activities (Huston & Sakkab, 2007; Kirschbaum, 2005; Van den Biesen, 2008). In the last two decades, several factors pushed companies to source technologies from external parties and monetize their unused technologies through licensing agreements or spin-offs. The increasing complexity of tech-nologies (Brusoni, Prencipe & Pavitt, 2000), the (typical), over-utilization of own R&D personnel (Clark & Wheelright, 1990), the specialization of technology players such as universities and high tech start-ups and the emergence of more effective technology markets with new types of interme-diaries and technology services companies as main growth accelerators are important drivers of the popularity of open innovation among practitioners (Chesbrough, 2003a, 2006a). Research on open innovation has been burgeoning in the wake of the increas-ing role of open innovation in companies. Yet, despite its popularity, the actual performance effects of open innovation are not well understood. R&D col-laboration with external partners is an important element of outside-in open innovation activities. Over the past years, several studies have examined the performance effects of R&D collaborations. These studies have almost exclu-sively focused on the firm level. So far, no consensus has been reached in the literature (see Tsai etal., 2009 for an overview). Some studies show that R&D collaborations improve firm performance (e.g.:
Chapter
Full-text available
3.1 INTRODUCTION Open innovation and open business models have received a lot of atten-tion during the last decade both from practitioners and academia since Henry Chesbrough launched the two concepts respectively in 2003 and 2006 (Chesbrough, 2003a and 2006a). Careful observation of publications about these two concepts reveals that most researchers as well as practitioners do not make a proper distinction between them. In this chapter, we intend to clarify the distinction between the two concepts and, more importantly, to extend the range of potential innovation strategies by combining open innovation and open business models in different ways. This should lead to a comprehensive classification of possible innovation strategies in which open/closed innova-tions are combined with open/closed business models. The classification starts with simple combinations of open or closed innova-tions and traditional vs. open business models in their new product develop-ment. Combinations of open innovation and open business models generate interesting models to create and capture value, which to our knowledge are not specified before in the open innovation literature. The classification will also illustrate that (open) innovation targeting new product or new business development is just one possible strategy how firms can create a competitive advantage. Product innovation may not be an option for companies producing commodities (e.g. crude oil) but the competitive drivers in these industries (e.g. finding the best oil wells) may be affected by the product innovations of their (technology) partners (e.g. new technologies to explore oil wells more effec-tively). Reframing open innovation in this way allows us to shed light on inno-vation networks in which the instigators of the network are not the innovators themselves, but they nevertheless form the hubs in a broader innovation eco-system in which they benefit from the innovations of their technology partners. OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRSTPROOFS, Fri May 30 2014, NEWGEN Book 1.indb 50 5/30/2014 4:31:46 PM Classifying Open Innovation and Open Business Models 51 In sum, this approach in which we define open innovation and open busi-ness models more carefully, in combination with a change in focus from new product development to (other) competitive drivers will result in a rich classi-fication of different types of open innovation research. The clarity of the struc-ture should make it attractive as a starting point for several new developments in open innovation research. The rest of this chapter is structured as follows. The next section clarifies open innovation and open business models. The third section develops our proposed categorization combining the two concepts. The fourth section illus-trates each of the resulting cells in the classification with numerous examples. The fifth section summarizes some thoughts about how this classification may lead to new developments in research about open innovation. 3.2 ACLARIFICATION OF OPEN INNOVATION AND OPEN BUSINESS MODELS
Article
Full-text available
Please note that gray areas reflect artwork that has been intentionally removed. The substantive content of the ar-ticle appears as originally published.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper investigates the mechanisms that trigger a sequence of external knowledge absorption in an innovative automotive firm. The data was collected through an ethnographic-inspired methodology conducted as an embedded scholar within the Innovation Purchasing Direction of this firm, a dawning and rare function. The results of our investigations show that the trigger of absorptive capacity is made up of two sequences of activation of the same knowledge related mechanisms linked by one people-related mechanism. First, the external knowledge is selected, adopted, contextualized and preserved by Innovation Purchasing actors that will enroll Research and Development actors to become the internal holder of the external knowledge. Second, together with these holders, the knowledge-related mechanisms are activated leading to the recognition of the value of the external knowledge by the recipient firm.
Article
Full-text available
To innovate, firms often need to draw from, and collaborate with, a large number of actors from outside their organization. At the same time, firms need also to be focused on capturing the returns from their innovative ideas. This gives rise to a paradox of openness—the creation of innovations often requires openness, but the commercialization of innovations requires protection. Based on econometric analysis of data from a UK innovation survey, we find a concave relationship between firms’ breadth of external search and formal collaboration for innovation, and the strength of the firms’ appropriability strategies. We show that this concave relationship is stronger for breadth of formal collaboration than for external search. There is also partial evidence suggesting that the relationship is less pronounced for both external search and formal collaboration if firms do not draw ideas from or collaborate with competitors. We explore the implications of these findings for the literature on open innovation and innovation strategy.
Article
Full-text available
Scholars have recently highlighted the promise of open innovation. In this paper, we treat open innovation—in it's different forms and manifestations—as well as internal or closed innovation, as unique governance forms with different benefits and costs. We discuss how each governance form, whether open or closed, is composed of a set of instruments that access (a) different types of communication channels for knowledge sharing, (b) different types of incentives, and (c) different types of property rights for appropriating value from innovation. We focus on the innovation “problem” as the central unit of analysis, arguing for a match between problem types and governance forms, which vary from open to closed and which support alternative forms of solution search. In all, the goal of this paper is to provide a comparative framework for managing innovation, where we delineate and discuss four categories of open innovation governance forms (markets, partnerships, contests and tournaments and user or community innovation) and compare them with each other and with two internal or closed forms of innovation governance (authority and consensus-based hierarchy).
Article
Open Innovation (OI) is a term promoted by Henry Chesbrough and defined as a paradigm that assumes firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firm look to advance their technology. Nestlé Co. utilizes open innovation, new business models, trust and goodwill, to co-develop innovation with partners and produce value for consumers and customers. The company's approach to OI is to combine internal resources with external assets. It applies OI by tapping into technologies and expertise of more than a million researchers worldwide, including science universities, venture capital, strategic suppliers, and government laboratories. Companies engaging in innovation partnerships must ensure that their joint work meets all rules and regulations surrounding anti-trust. Organizations should apply a disciplined approach to the innovation process to drive value creation.
Article
This paper addresses a major gap in reported research on open innovation (OI): how do companies implement open innovation? To answer this question a sample of 43 cross-sector firms were reviewed for their OI implementation approaches. The study analyzed how firms moved from practising closed to open innovation, classifying the adoption path according to the impetus for the adoption of the OI paradigm and the coordination of the OI implementation. The way firms adopted OI was found to vary according to (1) their innovation requirements, (2) the timing of the implementation and (3) their organizational culture.