Initial scoping interviews were conducted at the start of this research forming the pilot study, in order to gain a general context around the key research themes. Interviews with P&G external innovation managers were completed and held in- person in both America and China. Several exploratory interviews were also held with Sky in the UK (see methodology chapter). The findings revealed current industrial practices, internal language, issues and challenges. Table 15 below summarises the main findings from the scoping interviews.
Table 15 Qualitative Data Summary - Scoping Interview Findings Source: Author (2016)
Current Practices Issues Challenges
Pre-FEI – Discover, Invent, Demonstrate
Linking a found innovation to appropriate BU
Multi-level high complexity
– network of networks, global connections
SIMPL – Success, Initiative, Management, Planning, Launch Interdepartmental miscommunication IP and copyright restrictions – unsolicited ideas
Solicited and unsolicited search processes
Identifying leads Inter-departmental
communication
Iterative processes – search criteria adjustment, customer feedback
Time constraints Scalability of technologies - global
Strategic partnerships Network establishment Setting the right challenge
Quick opportunity evaluation Early problem definition Communication strategies
Up-front understanding of customer needs
Confidentiality Innovation culture – silo structure
Success criteria – defined by particular role
Human resources retention
Cross-functional knowledge sharing
High volume of internal acronyms
Harnessing connectivity Conflicts - cross- contamination of information
Idea diversity – look to other industries
Appropriate data handling Tracking of needs, threats, trends, network
Some of the major challenges included: 1) very high complexity in existing networks and partners, 2) information contamination across business units, and 3) confidentiality issues within unsolicited idea submissions. Other challenges from the scoping interviews were process complexity, high external idea volume (unsolicited ideas), language / terminology, confidentiality, and data organisation particularly with tracking network responsiveness. A trend towards automation of idea and network management was overarching and identified in the qualitative interviews. Automation of these activities would in theory save managerial time, evaluate submissions, identify leads, and track responsiveness of numerous networks. This primary research will address the reasons why this is currently not being done frequently in organisations.
P&G appeared to have two main external search drivers: uncertainty and lack of capability. Uncertainty mainly revolves around the definition of the initial need. Lack of capability can regard capabilities such as knowledge, skills or manufacturing. A multitude of idea sources are used by the organisation including venture capitalists, R&D community, inventors, academic research, conferences, databases, incubators, national labs, suppliers, and trade organisations. This diversity of idea sources re-enforces the fact that ideas can come from many different industries and people.
Scoping interviews with Sky were composed of several preliminary meetings and discussions with the concept development director and team members. This
allowed for a better understanding of the company’s culture, processes and terminology. Several semi-structured interviews with employees then explored their current external relationship management processes. This helped refinement of the research questions and added greater understanding to how companies currently shape their idea pipelines. The main issues from this input was that it supported the complexity involved with managing ideas, confirmed several ideation processes used internally and brought to life several challenges faced such as manging the project pipeline and finding time to evaluate ideas. A few issues emerged from the qualitative scoping interviews around searching practices. Search strategy is essential as the strategic decision whether to search
internally or externally drove the search and which sources would be used. They identified this as a key success factor as often companies do not make this decision upfront and do not take the most effective route at the beginning of the search.
Search type in terms of solicited or unsolicited management of ideas encompassed a big challenge with unsolicited ideas. Solicited searches are known and prioritised by the company directed at specific business needs. Unsolicited ideas come in from the external world where evaluating a high volume is the main barrier. Managing unsolicited ideas was one of the main challenges faced by external innovation managers. The majority of ideas are rejected mostly due to IP issues, not enough information and a lack of strategic fit. A need to make sure that work is not repeated within the company.
The above findings are supported by the work of Alexy et al., (2012) who identified two challenges with managing the unsolicited idea process: low quality and high quantity of ideas, and IP protection and ownership. There is a tension
between an organisations’ desire to welcome unsolicited ideas and its fears of
dealing with too many. This illustrates how idea management processes involve a high degree of complexity and must be organised efficiently (Brem and Voigt, 2007).
Evaluating the search effort is a balance between the beneficial outputs of a search versus the effort expended conducting it. Companies need to reach the right balance otherwise they could be spending time and resources on a search which may not provide a sufficient level of benefit. This is linked to whether an area is familiar or unfamiliar and would affect how search and select practices are implemented. This can be in terms of risk, change of expertise, lack of information, or greater uncertainty within unfamiliar search areas. Existing knowledge of opportunities for known versus unknown areas was also identified in the interviews.
Innovation type emerged as an issue due to incremental innovation requiring less sources of innovation compared to radical innovation. Issues such as IP and confidentiality were emphasised as of upmost importance to their select
practices. This is a core selection criterion which every incoming external idea is evaluated against. Another key criterion is strategic fit and therefore relevancy to the business needs at the time of idea submission.
Summary of Key Insights
It was found that external search drivers are either uncertainty and / or a lack of capability. Looking externally is something which practitioners did automatically, but used their own methods in order to do so quickly. Uncertainty revolved around definition of the initial need and it is often mitigated through discussions with colleagues or external experts. A lack of capability can relate to capabilities such as knowledge, skills or manufacturing. For idea generation and addressing research question 2, this uncertainty is highest with radical innovation and as previously discussed, incremental and radical ideas may need to be managed differently. This therefore links to the initial definition of the need.
All of these challenges and issues are led by the organisational culture and barriers such as bureaucracy and structures. Leveraging capabilities for innovation and facilitating internal and external connections increases the likelihood of informal serendipitous ideas which was also mentioned as a success factor. These issues helped to position the main survey in terms of areas to focus on and helping to define the key questions for investigation.
Digital tools are commonplace but it is how they are used to find solutions to the need that is important. One challenge included the management of unsolicited ideas due to high volume, leaving an opportunity for evaluation to become more focused in order to save time and money. IP / confidentiality were not cited anywhere as key idea quality success criteria in the literature, however, in organisations these are the first barriers for external ideas. This means that idea evaluation and quality is critical to search and select practices. Specifically the outputs of digital tools such as Inno360, as asked in research question four, are evaluated by practitioners by how well it meets the need.