1

Measuring and aligning in Open Innovation collaborations

Dr Letizia MortaraCentre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge

lm367@cam.ac.uk

COHORT MEETING 5:OPEN INNOVATION INITIATIVE

Friday 9th December, 2016

Today0900 Recap of meeting 4

9.15 Measurements in OI?

- Definitions and examples

- Measurements

1030 Coffee

1045 Implementing measurements in the Inbound process - Alignment for Collaboration

1200 Lunch

12.30 Session continues

13.30 Close: Evaluation and Feedback

2

Research Development Commercialisation

Core Market Focus

Company Boundaries

Products in-sourced (e.g. Co-branding)

IP in-licensing

IP out-licensing

Technology Spin-outs

Ideas & Technologies

Docherty, M. (2006), Primer on ‘Open Innovation’: Principles and Practice, pdma (Product Development and Management Association) Vision (April 2006), pp.13-17.

Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Open Innovation

Resources Markets

Business unit 1

Business unit 2

Business unit X

ExistingMarket 1

ExistingMarket 2

ExistingMarket X

Partner 1External Market 1

Partner 2ExternalMarket 2

Partner XExternalMarket X

NewMarket 1

NewMarket 2

NewMarket X

Th

e C

om

pan

y

Arrows highlight the direction of technology transfer

Mortara et al. 2011/ Ahn et al 2015

Leveraging Existing Potential

3

Outbound: New Business Models

• Centro Ricerche Fiat. Early 90s. Transformed 

FIAT Main BU

CRF

£ Tech

Before

FIAT Main BU

CRF

£ Tech

After“Competitiveness for Customers at Competitive 

Prices”

Customer 1

Customer 2

Customer 3

Customer 4

Customer n

Internal customers

Adapted from Di Minin et al. 2010

Collection of basic information on a country

Identify intermediaries & setup visits

Visits to the targeted country to establish social networks

12

3Follow-up with interesting research contacts4

Country Strengths/ Weaknesses Selection Intermediaries:• National level• Regional level • Research centre level

• What technologies are interesting? •What is their readiness level?•How does the research centre appear?

Collaborations

Mortara et al. (2010)

Inbound: Scouting programme at Kodak

4

Outbound Service innovationTaking the infrastructure/expertise built for themselves and invite others to use it.

• Offering expertise and consultancy on how to run an online retailer service

• Opening up its storefront to other competitor retailers

• Providing cloud computing services

Both in- and out- bound

Mortara et al. , 2009

5

Internal marketsExternal  (re)sources

Traditionalmarket 1

Traditionalmarket 2

External market 3

External market 2

New internal market 1

Internal sourceR&D unit 1

Internal sourceR&D unit 2

Firm resources

CVC

Incubator

Industry partners

Users/consumers

Universities

…Source n

Startups

Government

Inbound Outbound

Markets

Mortara et al. 2013

Existing 

busin

ess are

as

New

busin

ess are

asExtern

al busin

ess are

as

DEFENDER

ANALYSER

PROCESSES OUTCOMES

Alignment with project goals ….

Alignment with strategic goals (Defender vs. 

Prospector) …

Extent of activities

Progress of activities……

Knowledge building

Capacity Building…..

Short term Long term

Activity  

metrics

Outcome

metrics

Effectiven

ess

Efficien

cy

Firm‐related metrics

Project – related metrics

Adapted from Loh and Mortara, 2016 

6

Activity 1 

• In groups discuss

‐Where do we measure OI success? 

‐ How are we measuring it ? (What metrics)

‐Who would care about which metrics?

‐What are the limitations of our measurement choices? 

COFFEE BREAK

7

Inbound process

Slowinski, 2005

Want Find Get Manage

1 2

“WANT” & “FIND”

14

Want Find

1

8

Mortara 2010

We FINDWe ask others to help us FIND

Where we want to measure FIND?

FIND PROCESS MEASURES

FIND PROCESS

Short‐termmeasure

Long‐termmeasure

SolutionPartner

Company success/ strategy 

achievementsAdapted from Loh and Mortara, 2016 

9

Short term Long term

Activity  

metrics

Outcome

metrics

Effectiven

ess

Efficiency

Adapted from Loh and Mortara, 2016 

Firm-related metrics

Project – related metrics

An example: TI Evaluation MatrixLoh and Mortara, 2016 

10

“GET” & “MANAGE”19

Want Find Get Manage

2

From Find to Get

Mortara and Ford 2012

11

A large firm.. A start-up ..

ponderous, slow and stupid a bunch of cowboys

preoccupied with reviewing everything to death

shooting from the hip

awash in mindless procedures disorganised, slippery

risk averse, procrastinating going off in all directions, unfocused

characterised by paralysis through analysis

characterised by sloppy work

divided, fragmented exclusive, clannish, hostile

Source: Doz and Hamel (1998) p. 154

Activity 3 - Discussion

• What issues might have arisen in the management of this partnership?

SoftCo is a software company established in 1995 to commercialise novel server software. At the time of the case study, the company had six employees and had raised its seed funding from individual investors and was seeking its first round of institutional investment.

ComputerCo is a multinational technology solutions provider for individuals, businesses and institutions, with its traditional emphasis of activities being on hardware and consulting services. At the time of the case study ComputerCohad over 100,000 employees employed throughout its international operations.

12

Manage: Trust

Start-upEstablished firmWhy?

How?

Investors

Consultants

Other start-ups

Other established firmsOther

start-upsOther start-ups

Lawyers

UniversitiesPublic agencies

PartnershipsLawyers

Grants, support

Grants

Research collaboration

IP, investment

Partnerships

Investment (corporate VC)

Grants

Services

Complex!

Minshall et al. 2010

13

What can firms do to help this process?

Standard partnering issues

• Partnering strategy

• Innovation process

• System design and task partitioning

• Partner search and selection

• Getting started

• Management

• Change and evolution

Start-up specific issues

• Strategy and business model

• Technology readiness

• Organisational asymmetry

• Setting up the deal

• Managing the relationship

Is it a good technology/partner combination?

  E3

‐ E3

Evaluate possible strategies 

to counteract risks 

associated with partner 

Technology 

Positive match  

Bad technology – 

Good partner  

(Why bother?) 

Negative match 

0

‐ E2  E2

Partner

Mortara and Ford 2012

14

Are we capable of working with this partner?

 

0E1 ‐ E1 

Mortara and Ford 2012

- Does the company know about these technologies?- Have the people involved prior experience of working with that partner?- Are the internal people capable of changing they way they work/their

views in the light of new ideas?- Are people internally supported by the top management?- Are people experienced and ready to share knowledge with external

partners (do they know what to share and what to keep private)?- Is the firm capable of re-using the external knowledge acquired in several

ways?

…ETC

15

Further reading (Open Innovation)

Mortara 2010

Mortara et al. 2009

Mortara and Ford 2012

http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/resources/reports/

Other references• Loh, Y. W. and L. Mortara (2016). How do Companies Measure Technology

Intelligence? I. J. of Technology Intelligence and Planning. In press• Minshall, T. H. W., L. Mortara, D. R. Probert and R. Valli (2010). "Making

'asymmetric' partnerships work." Research Technology Management. 53(3): 53-63.

• Mortara, L., Ford, S.J., Jaeger, M., 2013. Idea Competitions under scrutiny: Acquisition, intelligence or public relations mechanism? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 1563-1578.

• Mortara, L., Slacik, I., Napp, J.J., Minshall, T., 2010. Implementing Open Innovation (OI): cultural issues. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 11, 369-397.

• Ford, S., L. Mortara and D. Probert (2012). "Disentangling the complexity of early stage technology acquisitions." Research - Technology Management 55(3): 40-48.

• Mortara, L., R. Thomson , C. Moore, K. Armara, C. Kerr, R. Phaal and D. Probert (2010). "Developing a Technology Intelligence Strategy at Kodak European Research: Scan and Target." Research - Technology Management 53(4): 27-38.