The Collaboration between People in Innovation

1

The Collaboration between People in Innovation Networks Katinka Bergema, Rianne Valkenburg & Cees de Bont

Katinka Bergema, Rianne Valkenburg & Cees de Bont

The Collaboration between People in Innovation Networks In this chapter, we will focus on the collaboration between people from e ee e el le e e e le ee e ll 2 12 le e ll e ee e e e le e e

el e ee

l

e ee e

l 2 11 le e e e

e

ll e e e e l e e ee e e e e e ll and multidisciplinary teams within an le e e e e e e e e e e e P l D e e l e el e e e e ee e e ll e l e e e ll e

Content 1. Networked innovation

2

2. The factors that can influence networked innovation

2

3. Factors from the literature review and the case study 31 e e le e e e 32 e e e e e e 33 e e e e e e 3 P e le e e e 3 P e e e e e e 36 e e e

4

4. Conclusion

6 6

10

1

2

The Collaboration between People in Innovation Networks

1. Networked innovation D

e e e ee e e e e e e le e e e e e e e e le e e e e e e le e l e e e e e e e e e e e e le P l ee le e le ee machines and the people from Douwe e ee le e le e l ee e ee l e e el e e e e P l D e e ee e e e e el e e e e le e l e e l

e e el

e ee

ee e e

e

D

e e el e e e e e e e ee alternated between phases of l e l e ee ll e a joint team with members from both P l e e e technically functional and ready for le D e e e el e e ee e ll ll e e e e e e e ee e ee e e ee ee e1 As we are interested in the collaboration, e e ll e e

e e

e e

le

e

ee e e

ll

Figure 1: Design collaboration with individual work and shared phases (Based on Kvan, 2000)

2. The factors that can influence networked innovation e ee e e l

l e

e

e

e e e

e e e e l

e el e e l l e the case study on the collaboration in e e e e e ll e l e e ee e e complex than the collaboration within e e ele e e e e e e e l e e e e e l e e e e le

e e e

e e

e e e e e

e

ee

el e

e

e e e e e l e e

e e ee P l e ee

e ee l e e D e ee

ee

e

e e e e

e e e e

e

e ee e

l e

e e e e

e

e e

e e ee l


e

e e 1

le

e

2 6 • •

•

• •

Pe le el e e l e e e e e e e e el e e l e ee e ee e e P e e el e e P e le e el e e l

e l e

le

e

ee P e

le e e ee le e e e e el e e e e e e l e

e

• e

el le e

e e

e l

ll

e

l e e e

e

e

ll

l

e

e e

e l

l e e

e

ll e ll

e

e e

e

e

The Senseo project When the Senseo project started, the coffee appliance market was under pressure. Philips made several redesigns of their appliances to lower the cost price, which affected the quality of the machines. For this reason, they searched for new ways of innovation to move into another direction. They searched for new paradigms around drinking coffee to change the competitive landscape. At Douwe Egberts, the coffee market was also under pressure. Younger consumers were drinking less coffee and switching to soft drinks. The buying behaviour of existing consumers was routine-based and consumers routinely loaded the ‘red bricks’, the red packets of coffee, into their supermarket shopping carts. At the same time the coffee’s quality slowly reduced, as they switched from Arabica beans to a more Robusta blend. Arabica is a higher quality bean than Robusta. This reduced quality bothered the coffee connoisseurs at Douwe Egberts and they also wanted to control the amount of coffee per cup to guarantee a certain quality for a constant cost price. This could only be accomplished through a solution with a fixed amount of coffee, for example, with a coffee pod. Another change in the coffee drinking behaviour of consumers was the moment they chose to drink coffee, which moved from a family moment to a more individual moment in which people wanted to enjoy a cup of good coffee, each with their own flavour. All these trends lead to the search for new solutions to attract new consumers and find new solutions with higher margins. Both organisations, Philips and Douwe Egberts struggled to find these new solutions. However, Douwe Egberts could not come up with a new solution without an appliance, Philips not without matching coffee pods. There was the general idea that in order to turn the market around, the initiative should be broader than just one coffee developer and one appliance developer. At one point, Philips, Nestle/Nespresso and Douwe Egberts teamed up to come to a new standard collaboratively, but this did not work out and Philips continued with Nestle/Nespresso. Douwe Egberts had continued on their own and had hired an engineering agency which had come up with a good conceptual and aesthetical design. Unfortunately, this design had technical problems and was not ready for mass production. When the collaboration between Philips and Nestle/Nespresso got bogged down, Philips was asked to enter the project at Douwe Egberts and to help with the development of the machine for mass production.

3


and position of the person, for example, e l l e l le el e e e e l l e e ll e le e l e l e e le e e ee e P el 1 e e e e e e le e ll e e e e l ll Entrepreneurial skills ee e e e l ll e e ll entrepreneur has in which he places the e e e l ee e e e e e e el e e e D e e le e e e ee e e eP l e e e e le e e e e e ee e e e l e leader used this disinterest and freedom e e e l e e e e le e e e e e e e

3.2. The team in the networked innovation project e e e e l relations between the team members, e le e l e e literature relates trust to the reliability le e e e e le e e 2 1 e e e l related to trust that the partner does not e e le e e e el e e e e e e e e e l e e le e l 2 11 e e e e 1 e l e ee e e e e l e e e ll e e e e e e

e

Project leadership skills e e e e e l e e e l e e le e ll e e le e ee e ll e e l l e l e e le e ee fte ll e e ll e e ll e e e e e l e e le e e2 e e e e le e e e e l e for his team members between their e e l le e e e e e le e l e e sure the people in the team can do their e e ell e

l e e ll e l also useful for the collaboration in a team e e e e l l ee e e e e e e le e e

The personal click between different people e e e e le el e e l l e ll e e e ee ll e e e e e e e le el l e e e e e e e e e e e l ee l e e e e e ee e l l l e e e e The willingness to help each other e e l e e el e e e e e e ll e el e e l e ll was not always easy, with the introduction e e e e e el le ee e e e e le e e ee P l e l ee e e l e D e e l l e ee P l e e le e e e el D e e e e ft e e e el e e e e e e l e l e ee l el e e multidisciplinary teams, they may become e e e e e

5

6


e e el l e e e e e e e e e e cluster can be important enablers for the e e e

e e e ll lle e fte

3.3. The project content in a networked innovation project e e e e e e el e e e e related to the quality of the content: e e l e le V l e 2 Disappointing quality of results e e e quality of project results is an additional e e le e l the collaboration had a quite open atmosphere, at a certain point in the collaboration, people were hesitant e e le e e le e e e e because the quality of test results was e e e e e situations, they redid the tests and if e e l e e e lee before shared with the people from the e e ll le e e e e The level of integration e e e le el e ll e e l le el e e e le e e e e e l e e e le e e le el e e e e e e e e e l e e l e ll e le e e le el e e e e e e ee le e le e e e that needed to be represented in the joint e

l e e e e new factors in the project content cluster, ee e ee e ee e e ee e ll l l e e e

3.4. Project knowledge & communication in networked innovation e e le e le el e l e e e e e l ee le e e e e e el e e e e e l e e e e context, where team members realise e e el e e e le e l 2 11 2 2 le e ee

e e

e

e e le

l 2

e e e e

e Understanding of the project context e e e ee e e important it was to understand other e le e l e e le e e e e e P l e ee e e e e le D e e e e e e e e e e l e e e e e e e le P l e e l l l e ll e e e P l e e e e el e e ee e e e le D e e ee e e e e unnecessary because there already was e ee ee e e l e e e e e e le P l e e e e l e e e e le D e e e l e e e e l e e e l e Distance to the project e e l e e e e l e e e e e can be a hierarchical distance, where the team members do not interact daily e e e e ee e e e le el e le


e le P l e el e how their brands should be presented in relation with other brands, in this case, D e e e e el e e l l e l e at the same surface and this was actually e l e el P l D e e e le el e e l e e e e e l l e e e e l e e e l e e l ee e e e ee l ee e l ee e l e e Shared view on consumer needs e e le e e e e e e e ee e e e e e e e ee e e e e l e e e e le e e e e ee e e ee l e e e e e e e e e e le el e le e e l e e e e l l increase the cost price of the machine, which was undesirable for Douwe e e ee ell machines as possible in a short time to e e e e ee e e e ee ee l e e e e e factors to the literature, but there e ee e l e ee e e ee e ll and multidisciplinary teams within an e e e ee ee el e e l e 3.5. Project management in a networked innovation project P e e e l e e e l le ee el e e e e e D e 1 2 e e

e

e 2 e e e e ll e le e l 2 11 le e l 2 e e e l 1 6 e e e e e e e e e related to the project structure and the e e e A project structure in networked innovation e e e e e e e ee l e e le e e e e e e l e e e e e e e e le el e l e le el e

e

le el l l e e e le el l e ee e e e e e e ee le el e e e e e le el l l e le e ee e e le e ll el l e e e l e e e le e e e le e e le e e le el e e e el e e D e e P l ee e e the appearance of the machine would e e e l l e e e e e e l appearance of the machine or an increase e e e e e ee e e le el e e l e e e e e le e e e e l where both brands had to be presented e e l e e le l e e l e e e e e e e le l e their own teams and they would be e l e e e l e e e ee e e e e e of the machines and had to meet these e e l e e raise the cost price in order to increase the l ee e e e l le el

7

8


The formulation and use of formal agreements e e e e e l e l ee e and lawyers are new factors from the e e e l l e D e ll l ee e ee l e e ee e e l e e e e ee e e e ee e e ll e ele e e e e e e e e e ee l ll e e e el e e ee l e e e ee e eel e e le e e el e e ee e e e le e e ele e some points, the lawyers were dismissed in order to clarify what both partners wanted in the joint project without e e l the team members had decided on this, el e ee e e e e e e e e ee e e ee e e fte e e The project expectations e e e ee e expectations of the project and its complexity were also not described in el e e e e e e e e e P l e ee e e D e e e l e eP l realised the status of the project and its le e e ee e e ee e e e e e e e e el e le le e e ee e expectations and the reality hampered e ll e P l e l e e e e e ee e e l e e e e l e e e l in a document that listed the issues with e e P l e l e e e e was and what the partners could expect related to the status of the content of the e P l e e le e e e l e e l ee l

e

e

ee e

ee

e

e e

e

The equality of input and outcomes of the project l e e e e ee l e situation in the collaboration for the e l e e e e l l e e e e ee e e e partners want in the project which in e e e e e e ee e e e e ee l e e e e e

e e l e e e e ll e e ll e e e e ll e l ee l

e e e

e e e e l e e

e e e e

l e

e e e e e e e e l e e e ll el e e e e e e e e e el e e e e e expectations are set, as well as formal ee e l e e e e e e ll e e e e e ele e

3.6. The organisations in networked innovation e e l l e el e e e e e l e e l e e e e e l l e e 1 6 D 2 ee e e le e e e e l e e e el e e e e e e e e e e e e e e project, and the autonomy in the parent


Identity alignment of the parent organisations e e e e e e e e e e e l e V e e l ee e e e e e le e e e e e ee e P l e l e e ee e l e e D e e e e l e e e e e fte e ll e e le e ee

The support from the parent organisations e e e includes the importance of the project for e e e e l l e e l ll le el e e e e e e e e e e ell

e le el

P l

e e

e

e

e

l e e

e

e

e e ee e could be subtle and are untraceable at the e e le ee l e e e e e e

The current business context of the parent organisations e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e l le e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e lle e e e e e e e e e ee e e e lle e e e e e l e e e le e e e e e e e le e e e e e e e e e l e e l e e e e

e

l e e ee e e e e e e e

e le e e

ee l e e e D e e P e e

e e

e

l

ee e

ee e e

e e

le

e le e e le e D e e

e e e e

e e e l l l

e e e e e

ll

l e

e ll e e le e e el e e e e e le e e e e e le D e e ee e P l e e ll committed as a partner in the project, e e e e e e e e e e e l e e e P l D e e e e ll e le el e e e e e e e l e The freedom got from the parent organisations e e e e e e e e e e e e l e e e ee e e e e e e e e e e e ll e e e le e e e e ee e l l e e le l e ee ee le ll e e e e

9

10


e e e

P l

e

ee

l

e e l

ee e

l

e l

e

e e e e e e ee e e e l ee

e ee e e l ee e e e e P l e e e had to conform to their processes, it l e ee e e e e e l e e

e e e e

e e e

ll

e e e

e ee

e

e

e

e e e e e e l le el Pe l e e e e e e e e e they probably also had to deal with the e e e e e e e e e e e e l e e e D e e e ee e the factors may become more apparent e l e e e e ll e e l

and multidisciplinary teams within an

4. Conclusion el e

e e e e e e e e e e e3 e e ll e ee e both in the literature and in the case study e e e e l e e case study added much more new factors e l e e ll e l l e e e ee e e l e e e e le ee ll e e ee e e e the focus in this study on the collaboration e ee e le ee ee e e l e ll e ee e le e e e le e e l e e e e e ee e e e e l le e lle process that requires a lot from the team l e e e e e ll

e le

e l ee l e e e

some hints on how to do this, for example, e e e e e attention to and what questions the e e e ll e e e e e e ee e D 2 ell 2 13 e e e e e ee e e e e e e el l e e le e e l e done and what one should actually do e e l e e l e e e e approaches described in the literature e e le ell 2 13 V e 2 3 e e e e el e ee ee e e l e el l e l e e ee e l le endless discussions that can harm the ll V e 2 3 e e e e l l e e e how to deal with these factors in certain e e e e e e e ll e e e


Figure 3: The factors that can influence the success of networked innovation

Acknowledgements e e ll e e e e P e e e l

eD le

e e e

e

lP P P

l l e e e

e le

e

De e

e e

e e e le l

l el

l

11

12


References •

•

e e 2

P 6

e

l e

ell

e e

•

e

e e

ll

e

e

2 1 e

3 1

l l De

e

l e 33

•

le e

2 12

e

2 11

2 2

• D

e

e 23 1 D 1 2

• D

e e e e e 32 1

l e ee

e

e

P

e

e

l

1 6 P l

e

•

•

•

•

•

le l

P

el e

1

e e

e 2 1

e

e

le 2

e

ll

l

2

e

e

ll

e

ee P

e

33 e

D 311 316

3

D

e

e e e

ll

ee e

e

e

e e e

le

e l 2

ll

l

3

e 3

e De

l

e e e

e

l l

l

e

D e

e

2 6

e

e

e

e e

e e

e Pl

e

l

3 e el

6 Delft

e

e

Delft

le e e ll

•

2 1

•

e le

e l

e

2 e e

D

el 2 e Pe e e

e D e

e

e

e

le le 2 12 3 1

P e

el e l

De

e

e 2 2

e

e

ll e

e

l e 21

1

e

l e e

l 1 1 16

e 32 2 1 6 1

De

e

e le Pe e e e e ee

e 1 1 16

6

De

•

•

l

2 13 e e l ele e 31 6

e e

•

1

V l e e e e e

ll 1 1 16

D 1 1111 1

2 l e

2 e De

e e 26

l 31

e e

ll e

3

2

e l 1 3 221

e

P

e e e

e 1 3 221 23


• P l e e • P l e e e

e e

• P l l l l •

e e

e l

e e e ee

e

P l e e e e 1 2 13 e e e 2

1 e e e

e e e 1 2 13 e 2 11 2

e e

l

D e

1 6 De

e e 31

e

e 1 2 13 ee e l

e

e

e 1 ll e e e l le 1 11

e e

ee

e e

1

l

e

e e e e e

e e l

e e

le 3 1

e 1 3 2 2

13

e e e e

•

• V

ee

ll 1 1 16 1 2 6 e

e 6

e

26 el

3 2 3 l

ll

e

ll l

e el le e

l l

e e 3 1

13

14


About the authors Ir. Katinka Bergema fte

l e e e e l De ee Delft e e e e e e e P De l2 e l e P D e e eP e e e e e Delft e e l e e e e e e e ll e e e e el e e e le e e el e e e e ee e e e e l e e e ll e ee e le ee e e e l e ee ee l l ee e e e l e e le e e e e l e e e e e e e e 3 e e ee e e e e e e e ee e e le e ee le lle e e e e e e e e l e e

e

e

e

e

e

ll

e

Dr.ir. Rianne Valkenburg D e

e e

e e el e De

V l e e e le e l e 3 e e e el e e e e l e e l e

e

e l e

le e e e

e

e

e e el le

e

e e e

e le

e e

e e e e e

e l e

e le e

e l

e e

e

l e

e e

e

e

e le

e l e e el

e

l e

e

e

De el e e e el e 1 e e ell e e 2 e e e el 3 P e e e e ee e e e e

e

e

e

e e

l

le

l


Prof.dr. Cees de Bont ee e

e

De e De

P l l e P l 1

e

l e

e

e e

e De

e

l De Delft e e el e e l e e e e e e P e e e e P e e e e e el e e e e e e e eD e e e l e e e l e e l e e

De e

e

l

e

P l e

De

P l P e l e P l e el ell e e e Delft e e l ee e e e l e l e e e e l e l e e e e P el e e e e l e l l e le De e l l e e e

l

e

ee

l

P l P

e

e

e

e

15

Katinka Bergema

Rianne Valkenburg

Zwaluw Innovatie & Samenwerking Graswinckelstraat 45 2613 PV Delft The Netherlands

Research team Designerly Innovation The Hague University of Applied Sciences Johanna Westerdijkplein 75 2521 EN The Hague The Netherlands

t: +31626602910 e: [email protected] w: Zwaluw.net

e: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-90-73077-67-6

Cees de Bont Dean and Swire Chair Professor of Industrial and Product Design School of Design V1301, 13/F Jockey Club Innovation Tower The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong e: [email protected]

1