As the scope of the research does not cater for the practical implementation of these models in a real- life organisation, validation was done via an interview-based assessment with seven experts from various fields, each focusing on the validity of a different aspect of the research.
Regarding the final validation, a description of the seven interviewees, their relevant backgrounds, as well as the focus of each interview can be found in Table 7.
Although the seven interviews serve as the primary validation of the research done, a preliminary validation was also done for a published article (Marais & Schutte, 2009) during the latter half of the research. For this preliminary validation, two innovation experts were consulted for their opinion regarding the validation of the models, as well as the allocation of the models to the Fugle process. These preliminary recommendations were incorporated before any further research and allocation were undertaken.
The hypothesis of the research stated that:
Open innovation models can be successfully developed and introduced at specific stages in a standard innovation process, to allow an organisation to make use of those models to improve the success rate of its standard innovation process.
The methodology followed in approaching the validation of the research involved assessing the validity not only of the different Open Innovation models, but also of the proposed advantages, disadvantages and criteria that should be considered.
If it is found that the models will successfully contribute towards each allocated stage (addressing and supporting the requirements of that stage), it can be stated that Open Innovation will be beneficial to the innovation process as a whole.
Referring to the criteria set out in section 2.6, improvements (changes or additions) to the innovation process should address the following:
Improving the effectiveness of searching. Improving the accuracy of selecting.
Improving the success rate of implementation.
Therefore, if the model contributions claimed in Table 1 can each be validated and then be related to improving any (or all) of the abovementioned areas, it would improve the traditional innovation process model.
It was argued in section 3.1 that the Fugle model is a valid representation of a standard innovation process framework. Therefore it is assumed that, if the proposed contributions to the Fugle model are deemed to be realistic, it follows that that will be the case for any appropriate innovation process framework.
| Page 131 The definition and development of Open Innovation models
Testing the validity of the model allocations, the associated characteristics of each model (advantages, disadvantages and criteria to consider when implementing the models), as well as the allocation of the models to a generic process, will therefore serve as proof that Open Innovation can indeed be a beneficial addition to the standard innovation process.
7.1.1 The validation process
As mentioned before, the primary validation of the research was done by interviewing seven experts from diverse backgrounds. These interviewees were chosen to provide a wide perspective on the research.
The goal of each interview differed in the sense that each interview aimed to assess a different focus of the research. For this reason each interviewee was also presented with a unique set of questions to assess the validity of a specific aspect.
Each interviewee was given a 10-page summarised document to provide a background perspective before the interview was held. This document can be found in Appendix B.
The interviews all followed the same order: The author gave a short presentation, providing extended detail from the introductory document, while also highlighting the characteristics that are more relevant to the specific focus of the assessment.
A comprehensive set of transcripts, portraying the relevant aspects from each interview, can be found in Appendix B. Highlights from each of the interviews are given in the following section.
| Page 132 The definition and development of Open Innovation models
Table 7 - Summary of validation interviewee backgrounds and objectives for inclusion
Interviewer Occupation / Industry Reason for inclusion
Prof Frikke Herbst
Lecturer – University of
Stellenbosch’s Business School Lecturer (Marketing
Management) Marketing Consultant
The feasibility of marketing-orientated
advantages, disadvantages and criteria of each model.
Validation of the theoretic approach followed by the research.
Johann Groenewald CEO – Tracks4Africa
Validation of model’s proposed advantages, disadvantages and criteria.
Validation of potential for realistic use.
Truitjie van Rooyen Woolworths Foods – National Product Developer (Poultry)
Validation of practical usability of OI models, advantages, disadvantages and criteria within the consumer goods industry (B2C perspective).
Liné van Lill
Key Account Manager at Rainbow Farms for Woolworths Foods (Poultry)
Validation of practical applicability of OI models, advantages, disadvantages and criteria within a consumer goods industry (B2B perspective).
Ncami Sithole National R&D Manager – Rainbow Farms
Validation concerning characteristics from an R&D perspective.
Validation concerning the realistic application of the models within a consumer goods industry R&D environment.
Dr Heinz Essman Innovation Expert / Business Consultant – Indutech
Validation of the correctness of the Fugle stage requirement descriptions.
Validation of the correctness of the allocation of the models to the Fugle process.
Dr Louis Louw
Innovation Expert, Head of Research, Co-creator of Fugle Innovation model – Indutech
Validation of the correctness of Fugle stage requirement descriptions.
Validation of the correctness of the allocation of the models to the Fugle process
Dr Anthon Botha CEO – InnovationLab, Innovation consultancy expert
General opinion regarding the validity of the research, and the potential for realistic adoption.
| Page 133 The definition and development of Open Innovation models