Innovation Partnership (IP) is the new IP!

Today in an increasingly competitive and globalized world, any business with a desire for long term steady growth constantly needs to improve its innovation culture and processes. Running a successful innovation ecosystem, however, demands more. Successful innovation ecosystems make people outside the company measurably smarter, richer, and more innovative. Biologically speaking, innovation ecosystems invest in symbiosis, not parasitism. Growth isn’t zero-sum! Several industry leaders like Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Mark Zuckerberg, Reed Hastings, Marissa Mayer, and Haier CEO Zhang Ruimin similarly grasp the strategic, operational, and cultural distinction. They’re leaders and entrepreneurs representing organizations who are publicly committed to creating better ecosystems, not just better products, services or customer experience. While successful innovators reap new profits from new products and services, successful innovation ecosystems cultivate profitability by encouraging others to create valuable new offerings. Their financial futures depend on how innovative they make their customers, clients, channels, and partners. Truly effective ecosystems manage to turn outsiders into de facto collaborators. Enabling external innovation becomes as important as improving one’s own. In fact, successful innovation ecosystems create virtuous cycles of external creativity, which drives internal adaptation. In turn, internal innovation enables and inspires external investment. Ecosystem innovators are constantly asking, “Who are we making richer? Who are we making more innovative? Who’s on both those lists?” The answers say everything about the future they’re trying to create. Flipboard cofounder and CEO Mike McCue’s recently explained how they empowered their users to create their own “virtual magazines” which redefined the reader experience. He stated that over 7 million magazines were created by their customers within 10 months since the company was launched. These customers are now creating virtual magazines, not just reading them. And Flipboard is learning and adapting thanks to their expressive ingenuity. This is the new IP — not conventional “Intellectual Property” but “Innovation Partnerships.” Look at Amazon Web Services, GitHub, Toyota and YouTube’s investments in suppliers, and Apple’s App Store. Innovation ecosystems or open innovation consortiums like Procter & Gamble (P&G), believe that the best ideas can come from anywhere, and, therefore, make a conscious effort to open their innovation pipelines to a much wider set of sources. About a decade ago, the then P&G Chief Executive officer (CEO) A.G. Lafley set a target of more than half of P&G’s ideas coming from outside the company, and that became a reality after few years later Indian organisations are also benefiting from adopting an open innovation philosophy. At the strategic and system integration level, both Tata Motors and Mahindra have demonstrated its utility. Some Indian companies like Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M) and Tube Products of India (TPI) have joined international consortia to keep track of the latest research trends. For example, TPI has joined a US-based steel processing consortium, ASPPRC, since the last decade. ASPPRC has close links with the Colorado School of Mines. Membership of this consortium has helped TPI learn about processing steel in a more comprehensive manner. Leading global steel makers and automobile companies are a part of this consortium, and this helps TPI get a clear product perspective. While research consortia in India are in their infancy, pioneering programmes like the Government of India’s Collaborative Auto Research Programme (CAR) have brought companies like Tata Motors, M&M and TVS, and institutions like IIT Bombay and the Indian Institute of Science on the same platform. Membership of such consortia is not a substitute for internal R&D, but provides a listening post, helps assess emerging trends, and provides access to pre-competitive research inputs. The importance of India as a market, and the competitiveness of Indian companies However, dramatically boosting an innovation ecosystem isn’t inherently expensive; a new API, a simulation tool, a training methodology, or slightly greater access to customer data are frequently all that’s necessary to seed mutual growth opportunities. But just as management isn’t leadership, innovation process improvement isn’t innovation ecosystem stewardship. Fostering an innovation ecosystem does require a culture and competence of stewardship — making the kinds of investments and improvements that aren’t just opportunistic, but reflect and respect the core values you want to endure. Today, where service industry is being rapidly commoditized, (often invoking self-destructing price wars) merely delivering 'what-you-are-told-to-do' within scheduled timelines is considered a hygiene factor. Our clients need multidirectional support in problem solving. Vendors/partners/customers are best positioned to do this. We are committed to make our innovation journey soon transform into a thriving value creation ecosystem making participatory innovation; beyond organizational boundaries, a huge success. In the near future, we envision a world where innovation ecosystems will triumph over innovative companies if and when the benefits of mutual value creation outweigh the costs.

The defect, diversity and inequality debate....

Genetic defect? cultural diversity ? and social inequality ? arent they very mutually dissimilar concepts ? dont we usually prefer to have the 2nd one and

disdain on the other two? are defects and variance occuring out of random ness of events, the same thing? how do you compare a defective tool produced from

an assembly line factor and a new born with a rare genetic defect?now if u wud say a machine is different from a human, then i wud like to state the basic

rationalisim of science assumes humans are nothing but biological machines... then why are we so bogged down in detecting defects and reducing defects and

variance that exists around us or why do we get so perturbed when we see a genetically defective new born? cant we accept things as they are by default? why

are we so regimented in our thinking ?in other words who on earth needs six sigma ? can we notthink of factory defects as a random process of production of

new design variations, of some unintended or unknown input?


The fallacy of the human race and our western scientific civilization, is that on one hand we want to elminiate percieved defects from assembly line

manufacturing in our factories and also from the genes in our blood , and on the other hand we patronize biological, cultural and national diversity

apparently.

We dislike the concept of racisim and hate/crminilize Holocaust and Hitler ,
(who just wanted to normalize racial variance in Germany too quickly thru mass killing) on the other hand we still feel pity on poor people from the third
world and generally want them become affluent and fat like westerners? Why only the western world has defined the world poverty line benchmark? why dont any
one say hey may be hungry poors in Africa are not so poor, its just europeans, north americans and now some asians have gone too well nourished for too long?

does this sound too much like that of by gone socialism ? i dont think so....diseases like obesity and overnourshment being more prominent than those due to

undernourshment is a medically established fact now....so why dont the over developed world declare themselves "too much over the affluency line" than
labelling the majority of the world "below-the-povert-line" who are still way below them in terms of social and economical abundance. This philosophy is some what coming into existence in global carbon credit trading arrangements taking place at present.



to put forward my solution, the western world just needs to declare developed countries of asia, North America and europe as over some defined affluency line and
should bring down usage of critical resources like electricity, fuel and food. Now if there is no collective consensus soon , we should stop shouting about
all the farce of stopping global poverty and gender/social ineqality. simply , we will say there is no such thing like poverty or infant mortality that
exists!!


Western sensibilities have only taught us hyprocricy. Not clear?? I will tell you why....let us consider the case of democracy , which is so well celebrated over the last few centuries, but see this
concept is only limited to governance...where is democracy in the corporate world of big businesses? why in corporate management, daily operations are kept separate from ownership ?

why doesnt share holders of a company run all day to day work of a large multi national company???? Where is participatory governance of big businesses which now runs America and India alike????

Recession's latest victim: U.S. innovation

Patent filings fell in 2009 for the first time in 13 years, worrying Silicon Valley that it is losing its place as the leader in global innovation.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- U.S. innovation slowed this year for the first time in 13 years as the recession cut into budgets, and costs to protect inventions rose.

The number of patent filings in the United States fell 2.3% in 2009 to 485,500 from 496,886 last year, according to a preliminary estimate by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. That makes 2009 the first year since 1996 in which businesses and inventors filed fewer patents year over year.

"That's unfortunate because [patent filings] are a reflection of innovation," said David Kappos, director of the Patent Office. "Innovation creates so many jobs and so much opportunity for our country. It is absolutely key to our long-term success in the global economy."

At the same time, U.S. patents issued to inventors and businesses in foreign nations jumped 6.3% for the year. That's a worry for Silicon Valley, which has been a global leader for decades.

Most blame the recession for the drop in U.S. filings. As a result, many companies are opting to hold off on bringing new ideas to market until the economy improves substantially.

"Our patent filings were down 25% this year, and it was a direct macroeconomic issue," said Joe FitzGerald, deputy general counsel for tech security firm Symantec. "The overall company reduced spending, and patent filings are a very controllable expense. We might have filed four patents, but we filed three and made sure they were strategically significant."

Cost constraints
The application, processing and legal fees average about $15,000 per patent, but the cost to defend those patents in court after they've been granted typically runs between $3 million to $6 million, according to Bijal Vakil, partner in White & Case's intellectual property team in Palo Alto, Calif.

"Once you have a patent, you also have to go out and defend your own turf," said Henry Nothhaft, chief executive of Tessera, a San Jose, Calif.-based company that licenses its electronic miniaturization technologies to consumer electronics companies. "That has become more expensive lately due to the complexity of technology and globalization of economy, and it has caused some products not to come to market."

It could also become disruptive to American businesses down the road as filings from abroad pick up.

"We are in a dire economic situation, so its not unreasonable for businesses to have to cut their budgets," said Vakil. "But this trend could spell financial ruin for some U.S. companies. We've lost our competitive edge, and other companies from other countries stand to benefit."

If that trend continues, it could also spell trouble for the American worker, especially given the weak U.S. labor situation. The Obama administration has contended that the economic rebound will rely on innovative U.S. companies to hire workers to develop new technologies and ideas like clean energy and smart transit systems.

"Our top priority is to see jobs get created, and we need patents to get through the patent office to help create those jobs," Kappos said.

The system is broken
Pushing patents through the system is easier said than done: The decline in filings this year has brought to light a number of problems with the antiquated American patent system.

The Patent Office does not receive any taxpayer money. It is completely funded by fees levied on patent filing, processing and awarding. The Patent Office also hasn't changed its fee structure in decades, so it continues to charge a flat rate (roughly $1,000) for patent applications, regardless of the idea's complexity or the amount of work that needs to go into processing the patent.

As filings have dropped off, so too has the Patent Office's revenue, which sank by $200 million in 2009. As a result, the Patent Office has initiated a hiring freeze, stopped all overtime, cancelled a necessary IT upgrade and has lost between 40 and 50 patent examiners every month this year, said Kappos.

That means longer wait times for patent approvals and a growing backlog of filings. Currently, there are 740,000 patents pending, with an average wait time for approval of 40 months. The Patent Office isn't even able to look at applications for three years because of the backlog. That's an eternity for tech inventions, which tend to cycle through product generations in a year or so.

Ultimately, it creates a vicious cycle, since a large lag time only further discourages patent filers.

"People are looking at the system as it is now, and they're saying that waiting 40 months for a patent may not be worth it," said David DiMartino, spokesman for the Coalition for Patent Fairness, a group representing major Silicon Valley companies' desires for patent reform.

Another discouraging trend has been the rise in patent disputes. By June, there were already 15% more "post-grant" patent reviews filed by competitors to the filing company than there were in all of 2008.

Those cases are expensive to defend, and are sometimes used by large companies to delay smaller companies' technologies from coming to market or to prevent them from being released at all, according to Brian Pomper, executive director of the Innovation Alliance, a coalition of mostly small high tech companies in support of strong intellectual property rights.

As a result, the Patent Office, lawyers and companies alike are clamoring for patent reform. Bills in the House and Senate, which are on schedule to be passed in the spring, would give the Patent Office the authority to adjust its patent fee structure and give juries direction on setting awards for patent disputes, among other reforms.

Some advocates argue that the bills are far from perfect, particularly because they could make it easier for big companies to repeatedly bring smaller innovators to court. But for the most part, businesses and government officials are eager for Congress to act.

"The American innovative spirit is stronger than ever. If we're able to get patent reform through, we absolutely can take processing times way down and get innovations through to the marketplace," said Kappos, who estimates that legislation will help reduce the average wait time to as little as one year.

Innovation meets creativity - Beauties on wheel!

Can university research catapult us to a new era of global prosperity?

{Source: An excerpt of the discussions from the LinkedIn group Global Academic Innovation Network (GAIN) }

Richard Litman, Patent Attorney - The great thinkers of the world became the catalyst for technological enlightenment and economic growth in past centuries. Ingenuity catapulted the world’s economy to new horizons.

Electricity, oil, nuclear power and other sources of energy fueled the growth of the global economy in the last century. With electricity came lighting, electronics and the age of information technology. With oil came the proliferation of automobiles, jet airplanes and the use of plastics. The nuclear era brought even further discoveries in medicine, space exploration and energy.

Economic prosperity can return, and return quickly, through good old-fashioned ingenuity.

The stimulus for economic recovery and expansion in the 21st century will come from the world's most plentiful resource: the human capital of people. Innovation is the answer for this century just as it has been in the past.

Universities that have adopted this core philosophy have become catalysts for economic vitality. It is a proven formula for sustainable growth of the economy.

Our global economic woes can be cured by technological innovation and the growth of small and large businesses fueled by university research. It may take a cure for cancer or some new form of energy to catapult the economy back to an era of prosperity. It could be that incremental improvements on existing technologies are all that is needed for our return to prosperity. Universities need to embrace this spirit today. Those which foster an environment where creativity and out of the box thinking are part of the core culture will help the global economy thrive in the 21st century.

An investment in university based innovation is one of the best investments we can make to stimulute the economy for a new era of enlightenment and worldwide economic growth.

Suddha Sattwa Basu, Analyst - Almost all of the large and medium scale leading universities of the world resembles any average small to medium sized company. And this large-to-medium scale which I am talking about is the scale of research output from these universities. The net volume and quality of the cumulated research output from a multi-faculty university is always the primary measure of the true quality of that particular university in consideration.Now this net resarch output is in a way the Intellectual Capital of the institution, which will include number of PhDs passing in one year, quality oftheir thesis work, number and quality of post-doctoral fellows, international accredition, number of patents - filed/granted, technology/patent license agreements, activity of the university technology transfer offices, software copyright enforcement practices followed, trade mark licensing of the valued university logo, start up companies formed as incubations on the university campus, charismatic nobel laureate teachers, iconic past students, great money funding from good relationships with government and large global corporations and above all a cross disciplinary peer culture of out-of-the-box thinking which is driven by an eccentric creative urge that runs equally through the veins of teachers and students alike. When we have all the above components in a perfect mix then we have the "ideal university innovation ecosystem". This in turn changes everything around us...people,patents,products,processes..everything.This will always be the way forward.

M. Karen Walker, Advisor at State Department Global Partnership Initiative We also must remember to consider the quality of the questions and rationale for lines of inquiry. Having worked in research in government laboratory and interagency settings, I can attest to the importance of requirements generation, involvement of end-users in the research program, and consistently reinforced yet flexible expectations. Hmmm ... perhaps there is a role here for the Humanities after all!

Phil Clare - Associate Director at Oxford University Research Services - I agree that Universities are central to our economy and society. If anyone doubts that, spend five minutes imagining how the world would develop if we suddesnly took them all away. My one note of caution is that we must remember the variability of timescales here. It takes at least three years to produce an undergraduate, six or seven for a PhD student, decades for GPS to use the mathematics developed to explore Einstein's work in satnavs. Investment in universities will drive the future knowledge economy, but it's no magic bulllet to drive up share prices next week... All of us in the great Universities of the world are deeply conscious of the need to maximise the impact of what we do on society. I worry that some expectations are a tad unrealistic though!

Erik Van Lennep, Strategy Consultant - "The great thinkers of the world became the catalyst for technological enlightenment and economic growth in past centuries. Ingenuity catapulted the world’s economy to new horizons......"

I do believe that academic institutions and public research, especially "action-research" have a great deal to offer in setting a new standard and opening innovative pathways, outside the box. But, and this is a serious BUT, it will not likely be something driven by the mega-universities, which are so cumbersome and politically hobbled that in many aspects internal communication is dysfunctional. I think the possibility of fresh directions and economic recovery are more to be found in smaller universities and colleges which can move more quickly and flexibly, whose need to compete successfully for students keeps them closer to the cutting edge. The other place I expect to see novel and appropriate solutions evolve is in collaborative work involving many stakeholders from academia to industry and community.

The true value in my mind, the acid test for universities' relevance, must always lie with the quality of education they offer, with the engagement and enlightenment and enthusiasm developed in their students and graduates. This is what universities are meant to be, and the justification for their founding. I agree with the list of outputs and values suggested by Suddha Sattwa Basu earlier, but I also want to note that these have evolved as a result of universities first and foremost creating environments for high quality learning, and most especially...questioning.

The fact that academia has historically sheltered and nurtured bright minds to stay on and deepen their research, ideally in an atmosphere which encourages a challenging depth of questioning is essential to what we now need them to provide in terms of innovation and socio-economic policy development. Yes it's a slow process, and in some cases unnecessarily so. An important direction to watch is "action-research", which like action-learning, values the information gathered in tandem with real-life project development.

To find ways in which universities, industry, policy makers and funders can work together to fulfill pressing human needs, from the economic to the inspirational, we will need to unhook university funding from big industry, and then renegotiate what that valuable connection is about. We need to return university research as much to real world and community solutions as we do to corporate IP arrangements and profit sharing. A fresh look, engaging more stakeholders would open some exciting and constructive new arrangements. Industry in the end will still benefit, probably even more than before, but so will community, researchers, and above all, the students

India’s Global Powerhouses - How they are taking on the world By Nirmalya Kumar, with Pradipta Mohapatra and Suj Chandrasekhar; Harvard Business Press

According to James Lamont in his article "Passage from India" where he reviewed this new book authored by the acclaimed author, Professor Nirmalya Kumar, one particular value of the book lies in its concise case studies. Where the reader quickly gains a sense of how personality and circumstance combined to produce change and opportunity. Interviews with top executives extract a sense of business culture and vision beyond the company mission statement. A humorous appreciation of history and coincidence also helps illuminate the corporate histories that show how Indian ideas and management techniques have global application, and how Indian executives easily adapt to the wider business environment.

Professor Kumar’s insights in this book are captivating for the common reader of most busniess literature. This prowess was easily achieved by Prof. Kumar as he straddled both the academic and corporate worlds by sitting on boards of Indian companies, while enjoying a career that has taken him from the US to the UK, via Switzerland. Neither the seat in the boardroom, nor the distance of London, has blunted his wonderment.

The book is really a superb anthology of business successes in India written with a narrative which is elegant and pacy both. I finished reading the book in one shot.

The authors have used their unmatched research wisdom in analyzing the dawn of new and old Indian businesses alike. Extensive discussions on questions like "When can a company call itself "global" ? " What should be the ideal organizational culture of a truly global company?" " How is an Indian Multinational different from a "born - global" Indian multinational ? - Are all well sequenced to stimulate a distinct thought process in the mind of most readers of the book. The book also succesfully brings in sociological and political insights from the dynamic co-existence of the myriad of Indian demographies. However, a more detail oriented treatment on the life and work of some of the great contemporary Indian business leaders leading their comapnies to unforeseen global heights, could have been a welcome addition. Moreover, a few instances where promising Indian companies failed in their global expansion strategies ( Eg: - where big trans-boder M&A deals turned out to be disastrous) and the new pricing models which are emerging within the new breed of Indian outsourcing industry (Eg:- Legal Process Outsourcing & Knowledge Process Outsourcing [LPO & KPO] ) could have also been added for more depth to the scope of this excellent book.

Building a Culture of Innovation

(An Excerpt from “Marketing Innovation” by Nirmalya Kumar)

Ideo is a design firm based in Palo Alto. They hire people who don’t listen to you. They hire experts from whom one can learn. People are experts from the fields of social science and anthropology and many other diverse areas. They encourage people to go out onto the streets and meet the customer. That is where the real work gets done and not sitting down at the desk. There is a process which they follow called the Deep Dive process. The key elements of a Deep Dive process are the following:

a. Have a clear goal.
b. Articulate the constraints. For instance if one is building an alternative to a cart which is used in supermarkets then one can say that if the prototype does not ‘nest’ it is not a solution. This becomes a constraint.
c. Share expert knowledge. How would an anthropologist see it ! How would a mother with children view a cart which is used in the super market !
d. Brainstorm.
e. Narrow down the ideas to a few which are related to need areas like if its a cart in the supermarket, then the need areas could be convenience, safety, flexibility etc. Each team now concentrates on one need area and comes up with a prototype.
f. These prototypes are now looked at independently and the best features of them are combined to come up with the one prototype which is presented.
g. The key is trial and error and rapid prototyping to meet predetermined deadlines.

In Ideo the above tenets of culture are manifested. In the process they follow to come up with design ideas where there is no criticizing of ideas which takes place. Wild ideas are built upon. The whole process is not organized but focused chaos. The team judges the best and not a single individual. Enlightened trial and error succeeds over lone ranger genius. Being playful is encouraged. Don’t ask for permission. Go ahead and do it. If it infringes on someone else’s space or idea of propriety then ask for forgiveness. Be weird and be proud of it. There is no hierarchy. There is a lot of teamwork and time deadlines are respected. There needs to be an Ideo in every company.