QUESTION: Choosing a Move

Why would you choose one move (move 1, move 2, etc.) over another?
What decisions/factors should be considered?
Can all industries benefit from insideout moves?

Amongst the moves indicated, making your IP work instead of leaving it
to decay struck me as the most obvious. It's the move closest to a
"quick win" (small changes with low investment (if any) but generate an
immediate benefit) : in the context of a downturn, most companies can't
afford any inefficient investments, and need every € they have to fund
their activity.
The main factor to me would be the importance of R&D intensity : a
firm spending a high proportion of revenue on developing patents that
have no financial return has a flawed strategy. On a more short term
approach, the financial strains on the business model of the company
also determine whether it can afford keep its IP out of the market or
not.

In my eyes, a mixture between Moves 4 and 5 seem to be very profitable. If the two companies are no direct competitors they can share experiences, knowledge and efforts. In general suffereing losses could be reduced, when a company doesn't have to make the same mistake an other company made before.

Choosing move #4 Grow Your Ecosystem, Even When You Are Not Growing, over move #2 Let Others Develop Your Nonstrategic Initiatives would allow you to keep talent in the organization while building strategic alliances with those in the value chain. If it is possible for certain projects to be put temporarily on hold, resources could be directed towards growing the ecosystem.

I think choosing a right move depends on the existing competency of company. Not all moves could benefit all industries. For example, Those companies take move 3 need to have a number of of IPs sitting on a shelf but generating no vlaue. Those companies choose move 4 and move 5 should have some strength in active innovation and interesting internal ideas that ohter people would be interested. For me, move 1 and move 2 are easier for the majority of company to choose, because they appeal to reduce costs and risks directly. The two moves release a company's pressure for adopting some new initiatives in a downturn. They keep the company stick to its core, but still could be flexible and active to innovations.

I think that it depends on many aspects:
1. the company's strategy.
2. the product type and property of the innovation.
3. the level of control that a company want over a certain innovation.
4. the competitiveness and the value of the innovation.
5. the degree of difficulty to move the innovation back inside of the wall.
6. the order of severity of the downturn.
7. the time that the downturn will last.

The level of control from move #1 to move#5 seems to be weaker and weaker. When using move #1, we can see that the innovation is kept in the subsidiary. The company can still have full control over the innovation. When using move #2, the innovation goes to the spin-off company, and the company still have centain control over it. However, the risk is higher than the former one. When move #5 is used, the IP is totally open to the public.

Although obviously different moves fit different types of firms in different industries, I think move 1 is also rather intuitive. When your company has a long supply chain, it makes sense not to try and take control over all of it, but instead focus on what the company does best and where it can gain the most profit.

In my opinion, Moves 4 and 5 would be the best. It enable companies share experiences, technologies, knowledges. It can also be a way to shift cost outside, stimulate participation and accelerate progress in the market

I agree with Shirleyo, move 1 & move 2 take the least effort to do. For example, a company only needs a few people to decide when to stop investing, who to lay off, how to manipulate financial statement between the mother company and the spin-off...etc. I believe most companies will go for these 2 methods to survive the downturn. However, it is actually very risky if managers only focus on the short-term benefits of doing so. Company reputation and business relationship are not built in one day. When adapting these 2 methods, a company really need to make sure she is doing it very carefully.

shirleyo wrote: For me, move 1 and move 2 are easier for the majority of company to choose, because they appeal to reduce costs and risks directly. The two moves release a company's pressure for adopting some new initiatives in a downturn. They keep the company stick to its core, but still could be flexible and active to innovations.

Even though while reading some of the moves seemed more intuitive and easy to follow than others, I do not think it is about choosing one move over the other. Every move is addressed to different focuses; it can be implemented independently or together with another move. I agree mostly with TA Max, which move(s) you choose depends on many factors. The company needs to assess its idea/innovation/product carefully, the market potential, if its part of the core competency or better left with another firm, the competition, the level of risk it wants to take and then decide for each new innovation individually which path is best. If you do that right, then I do not think that inside-out moves are limited to a certain industry, since innovation and change are necessary to succeed in every market.

I would have eto agree with max and naomi. The nature of the company would have to determine the move that is chosen to use to pursue inside out open innovation. Move 1 and 2 might suit firm A but do nothing for firm B. However, if i were to chose a single move for open innovation, I believe Move 4 would be suitable for any firm of any industry because you can become a preferrd partner for opportunities that emerge.

chloé_laluc wrote:In my opinion, Moves 4 and 5 would be the best. It enable companies share experiences, technologies, knowledges. It can also be a way to shift cost outside, stimulate participation and accelerate progress in the market

I agree with Chloé.

However, I think knowledge must be considered very seriously by firms. Without appropriate skills or technical experience, you can lose money, time and customers. As it's very difficult to define how much is you knowledge pool worth, it's also very hard to share it without risking to make an unbalanced deal.

I'm agree with Max. For chossing one move we should see first the internal factors (company's strategy, product type, kind of innovation, value of the innovation) and the external factors (market, downturn severity, regulations, perspective of the competitors, competitiveness of the market).
So the seleccion of one move always depends of the situation.
For example, no one has metioned the move 3 like their best option, but the paper (read Philips' example) and other licenced companies (fast food chains for example) have shown that actually the move 3 could be the best move in some situations, even if that knowledge is related to the core of the company; then the decision depends of the external factors (in the Philips' example the principal factor was the asian competitors' production costs).

I'm agree with Max. For chossing one move we should see first the internal factors (company's strategy, product type, kind of innovation, value of the innovation) and the external factors (market, downturn severity, regulations, perspective of the competitors, competitiveness of the market).
So the seleccion of one move always depends of the situation.
For example, no one has metioned the move 3 like their best option, but the paper (read Philips' example) and other licenced companies (fast food chains for example) have shown that actually the move 3 could be the best move in some situations, even if that knowledge is related to the core of the company; then the decision depends of the external factors (in the Philips' example the principal factor was the asian competitors' production costs).

When a company takes one open innovation move in a downturn, in what situation do you think she should stop or continue. In a recssion, aren't most companies tend to focus on near-term profits?

shirleyo wrote:When a company takes one open innovation move in a downturn, in what situation do you think she should stop or continue. In a recssion, aren't most companies tend to focus on near-term profits?

It depends on the size of the company in my opinion. For instance, big firms still can afford to take some long-term decisions.

jeremie_francois wrote:Amongst the moves indicated, making your IP work instead of leaving it
to decay struck me as the most obvious. It's the move closest to a
"quick win" (small changes with low investment (if any) but generate an
immediate benefit)

I agree with this. Option 3 seems to have the least amount of commitment too. But then again, if it backfires and doesn't generate any profits then would it have been better to save the IP and use it at a later date (when the economy bounces back and money can be allocated to R&D)?