Innovation and Ontologies

Concept Gate 69
A majority of larger companies tries to encounter this challenge with a knowledge management tool
which allows for an open process. At the same time, these systems are formal enough to allow
for speedy assessment along objective criteria (Fairbank & Williams, 2001; Luehring, 2003). In
smaller companies, such a system is rarely employed. The idea is rather ‘somehow’ forwarded
through the hierarchy until it reaches the instance which has the decisional authority to determine
the further development of the idea. Typically, between the person who brings the idea forward
and the person to decide about its further development, a number of levels 91 have to be passed.
This results in the Invisible Funnel as an unstructured diffusion process during which ideas are
filtered (Hauschildt & Salomo, 2007).
Combined with the later official assessments at the gates, the Invisible Funnel ensures a sorting
process. Thereby, many ideas enter but a certain percentage of projects are culled at each stage or
during its course, if new information is available (Cooper, 2005a; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992)
(cf. figure 11).
The Invisible Funnel has some remarkably positive effects. It frees the idea of redundancies,
deselects natural or ineffective initiatives, can bundle a number of similar or related ideas
(resulting in the innovation funnel as presented by Abernathy & Utterback, 1978), and activates
other interested persons to further develop the idea etc. (Hauschildt & Salomo, 2007; van de
Ven, 1986).
Then again, the informal filtering holds the risk of ignorance, take over or misappropriation of
the idea by the superiors. Accordingly, the central question is: who is responsible? It is advisable
to separate the innovative channel from the official channel as it has been shown that direct
superiors, suspecting more or less obvious criticism enclosed in the idea, might be overly critical
(Ettlie & Subramaniam, 2004; Hauschildt & Salomo, 2007).
As a consequence, a separate innovation channel which acts as a reliable interface between
employees’ ideas and the company’s idea pipeline is suggested; it should meet the following
requirements (cf. Boeddrich, 2004; Gruner & Homburg, 1999; Hauschildt & Salomo, 2007):
�
The Invisible Funnel is devoted only to initiatives, it leads to an instance which is able
to ensure that the initiative is neither ignored, taken over nor misappropriated (i.e.
bypasses the next hierarchical level, in any case the personal superior 92 ), and which is
able to induce a decision process on the future development of the idea.
91 Sometimes, it is not only a question of hierarchical level, but also of functional affiliation. If the idea stems from marketing, but has to be
funneled through R&D, difficulties increase due to differences in term of culture, language etc. (cf. paragraph 2.3.2.2).
92 This measurement is not contradicting the basic importance of an innovative culture (cf. subsection 1.3.1), but merely a way to avoid conflicts
by establishment of a transparent, universal process. Other possibilities to realize such a behavior include Quality Function Deployment
(Akao, 1990), presented in paragraph 2.5.2.1.2.