Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Master thesis Business Administration, Specialization: Strategy & Organization Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring Joost de Boer Student number 1517597 selection criteria have already been used before the session has stated. This has the benefit that sessions are often designed around a certain business line in Company C. However, when an idea has no direct match with a business line, it is difficult to implement it somewhere else in the organization. Hence, according to multiple interviewees, that is at this moment the only way to develop an idea in Company C. This problem becomes more clear in the development phase: if an idea does not fit in a business line, no one takes responsibility for it; the same thing happens when there is no clear business case for the idea itself. As an interviewee explains: “Who are going to develop it? Everyone is busy! And what about our budgets? Because we will have to make investments, but who will invest in something new that is not considered their responsibility?” Secondly, the development process of co-‐creation generated ideas is no different than the development process of ideas that were not generated through co-‐creation. “Internally, organizations are often slow as a result of regulations; but why should this be different when using co-‐creation? It is not that we measure with two sizes, or that co-‐creation is that much better than other idea generation techniques.” The diffusion of generated ideas does neither directly involve external parties. This probably also the result of the shortcoming of feedback to externals provided by Company C: interviewees indicate it has a lot to improve. “Stakeholders are highly positive and enthusiastic when they are involved in co-‐creation sessions. However, they are not satisfied with the follow-‐up. For instance, we do not communicate which of the generated ideas are going to be developed. A number of the participants in the co-‐creation sessions are people from our own personal networks, and through this way I know that our follow-‐up is not sufficient”. The product manager FRW adds to this: “the follow-‐up of ideas itself is slow. Not only our communication, but it also lacks in realization. We have already told our customers that we have a new service or product coming, but then it can still take us one or two years to realize it, because of slow organizational processes”. The use of co-‐creation throughout Company C’s NPD-‐process is illustrated by figure 4.6. Figure 4.6 | Company C: types of co-creation and purpose in the NPD-process Idea Selection: Match with defined themes / business line Themes defined by employees Club of Experts: Idea Generation Internal development No co-creation used Idea generation Idea development Idea diffusion Results and measurement Although one of them mentioned that “We have not invented our Nespresso yet”, the interviewees do indicate that co-‐creation offered some results to the organization. First, the global practice manager mentioned that co-creation appeared to be a useful way to structure and leverage ideas. Most of the time, the ideas were not completely new, but co-‐creation functioned as a vehicle to conceptualize the ideas, and to bring them under the attention of the senior management. “No one really ever took the effort to write down what the concept 45
Master thesis Business Administration, Specialization: Strategy & Organization Supervisor: Prof. Dr. T. Elfring Joost de Boer Student number 1517597 would look like, and to bring that concept to the management. And that is where co-‐creation has contributed in”. Next, participants also feel that co-‐creation contributed in boosting the innovative image of Company C. When looking how the results of co-‐creation were measured, participants indicated that Company C would build a business case around generated ideas. “We know what a certain idea will bring us: we simply indicate how much of the products or services we expect to sell, and calculate our revenues. This also includes looking at how much margin we have got, and within how much time we will regain our investments”. For Company C, it is obligatory to know what the turnover of a development of a product or service will be. “We do not take risks here; At Google, for instance, they don’t build business cases: they have an idea, develop it, and eventually see how it turns out. We can’t do that, we are operating in such a competitive environment. We just can’t generate a hundred ideas, of which ten will eventually be successful, like Google does”. Encountered difficulties using co-‐creation The participants think that external parties should be involved earlier in the process of co-‐creation: “We now tend to first think themes out for ourselves, and after that we involve other parties. Of course, this works well in order to set a certain direction, but perhaps we should consider involving those parties at the very start. We now start co-‐creating by shooting with a bullet, while we perhaps should be shooting with hail first, to generate new ideas”. In addition, although some of the involved experts might be working for a client of Company C, clients should be involved more explicitly. There also appears to be a need for a more structural internal co-‐creation project. “Knowledge is power. What we still see here, as in many other companies, is that people inside the organization tend to keep their ideas to their selves. We need to break with this idea”, the vertical market manager says. Internal co-‐creation might be a very suitable way to do this, also considering the size of the organization; but it needs to be embedded in the organizational structure and culture. She continues: “A field engineer can have a very good vision on how to solve certain problems, for instance. We have so much internal expertise; we just have to find a way to use it”. Finally, the development of generated ideas tends to get stuck between business lines. “You can only consider yourself to be innovative when you realize the ideas you have. But that is the problem: there is not enough speed to realize these ideas. When you throw a new idea back into an old organization, there is no match. The problem is that innovation simply is not in our DNA.” The delay in the development of generated ideas as a result of internal regulations and procedures, can according to the interviewees be overcome by developing it elsewhere, referring to the use of incubators. Once found feasible, ideas should be developed outside the organization. According to the participants, this can either be done in a corporate venture, or in an institute that looks more like an incubator. “If you particularize the process of idea generation/innovation, then you should also particularize the process of realization, one way or another”. 46
Page 1 and 2: Idea generation ********** Idea dif
Page 3 and 4: Master thesis (in progress) Bus
Page 27 and 28: Master thesis Business Administr
Page 43: Master thesis Business Administr
Page 81: Master thesis Business Administr

Download PDF (English) - Future Ideas

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?