ESF project 4895: Meer werk maken van innovatie voor werkgelegenheid en arbeidsmarkt
ANALYSIS FICHE OF LITERATURE
TITLE OF LITERATURE: The innovation value chain
AUTHOR : MT Hansen et al
TYPE OF AUTHOR (academic, consultants, practitioners, other): academic
COMMISSIONER OF LITERATURE (IF APPROPRIATE): Harvard Business Review
ORIENTATION OF LITERATURE (check with X):
 innovation in general: X
 innovation by / within the public sector:
 innovation oriented towards citizens:
 innovation oriented towards social and employment issues typically dealt with by ESF:
LESSONS LEARNT REGARDING:
A.
How to define innovation e.g. in types
B.
How to formulate an innovation strategy (in terms of scope, types of innovation, requirements)
An innovation process is only as strong as its weakest link. All links must function.
C.
How to organize innovation as a process in different stages?
Three sub-processes:
A) Idea generation: look first 1) inside, but bigger sparks come when fragments of ideas come together, 2) across units or from 3) external sources, even outside the sector. a.
Needs a solution network where “briefs” (the challenges that need to be tackled and constraints) can be launched or specific problems/technical issues put forward for answers (where the best can get a financial reward) b.
Other way is a discovery network. This can be a scouting unit where staff only spend time unearthing new ideas in broad domains / themes. These staff cultivate personal relations with researchers, academia and others who generate ideas. Diversity of contacts, NOT number is key here.

c.
Support internal networks: it is not enough to just bring people together for a brainstorm one in a while. Ongoing dialogue and knowledge exchange and the trusting relationship that goes with it is key.
B) Idea conversion: Need to balance the tendency to kill innovation by too strict criteria, tight budgets and conventional thinking with the one to let everything pass through weak screens where the organization overflows with new ideas of varying quality (often underfunded and understaffed) and no sense of how these fit into an overarching strategy. a.
Specific seed funds allow to fund ideas from anywhere until they reach “proof of concept” stage and go into further development elsewhere. These are like venture capitalists. b.
A specific unit can be set up for new ventures, with a project champion leading them.
This helps shield new ideas from the business as usual. On the other hand, it is necessary to keep line managers on board eg via a board; to enable access to line resources.
C) Idea diffusion: it is necessary to get the right stakeholders, incl. users, to support and spreads the innovation. Hence, someone must make sure innovations do not just languish somewhere as everyone is too busy doing other things. You need to create a “buzz” for new concepts. “Idea evangelists” use their deep, personal networks to do this.
D.
How to define outputs of innovation e.g. in terms of idea, concept, prototype…?
Proof of concept is mentioned but not explained.
E.
How to make decisions regarding progress of an innovation?
F.
What roles exist for different actors in the innovation process? What competences are required for these roles?
See above in process: scouts, idea evangelists, internal venture capitalists, project champions. These need not be full-time roles.
G.
How to organize interaction with external stakeholders (open innovation)?
H.
Specific tools that are explained (list briefly for each tool in what stage, by which role, why, how it is to be used). a) Tool 1: www.innocentive.com used to resolve specific technical issues (where the best can get a financial reward) b) Tool 2: Shell Gamechanger (start with submission into website)

Ideas are submitted by anyone from anywhere at any time (1) via a web portal, and are also developed in focused-topical workshops. Submissions are kept very simple – a single freeform paragraph giving a rough description of the idea. Every idea’s submitting ‘Proponent’ is assigned a ‘Sponsor’ within the GameChanger team in weekly meetings. The Sponsor arranges for a ‘Screening Panel’ (2) wherein any two members of the Gamechanger team hear a brief summary of the idea from the ‘Proponent,’ and decide on the spot whether it was worth developing into a formal proposal. If needed, modest funds (<$25,000) can already be allocated by that two-person panel to do the work necessary to Mature a more robust investment proposal (3).
When ready, the investment proposal is pitched to an ‘Extended Panel’ (4), consisting of any three Gamechanger team members, plus at least three experts with deep relevant knowledge in the technology and business the idea was addressing. Experts are hand-picked by the Sponsor and are generally energized to have an opportunity to see and comment on ideas in their field of expertise at an early stage. The GameChanger ‘Sponsor’ orchestrates a simple process that creates room for questions to be asked before opinions or judgments can be made. In a key design attribute, the expert panelists are asked to render their recommendation, but the decision is left to the Gamechanger team members present, who after brief private deliberation, immediately take the decision whether to invest in the proposal or not using a consensus decision process. Proposals are frequently modified based on input from experts. The decision and the reasoning for it was recorded in summary minutes and delivered to the proponent promptly – usually within 24-48 hrs.

If approved, the project is allocated a tranched schedule of funding to Execute the approved proof-of-concept experimental program (5). The Extended Panel is reconvened at ‘Tollgates’ to take decision and modify plans for continued funding (6). An average project plan invests
~$500k over ~24 months in about 3 phases of work. Sponsors proactively work with
Proponent teams to drive their projects through this plan, and adapt to changes and new opportunities along the way. The best projects ‘attract’ other people to help develop the opportunity by filling critical skill gaps along the road. The project is considered complete only if and when another team or department in Shell accepts a proposal to continue development of the proven concept (7).